SMT. SANGEETA GOYAL,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

This is the recalled matter which was dismissed vide order of ITAT dated 19.12.2013 for want of prosecution as non- appeared on behalf of the assessee despite issuance of notice regarding next date of hearing. The matter was recalled vide order of ITAT dated 05.01.2015 passed in M.A. No. 140/Del/2014. Thereafter, on 22.12.2015, when the case 10.05.2016, which was informed to both the parties. On 10.05.2016, due to non- functioning of Bench, the case was adjourned to 20.09.2016 and notice regarding next date of hearing was also issued to the assessee through RPAD at the address furnished by him in column 10 of the memo of appeal in form no.

Despite this, on 20.09.2016, when the case was called upon, again none responded on behalf of the assessee, nor has any application for adjournment been received on behalf of the assessee. It gives an impression that assessee is not interested in pursuing the appeal.

Considering the facts of the case and keeping in view the provisions of Rule 19(2) of the Income-tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963 as were considered in the case of CIT vs. Multiplan India Ltd., (38 ITD 320)(Del), the assessee’s appeal is liable to be dismissed for want of prosecution.

3. The Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar vs. CWT (223 ITR 480) has held as under: "if the party, at whose instance the reference is made, fails 'to appear at the hearing, or fails in taking steps for preparation of the paper books so as to enable hearing of the reference, the court is not bound to answer the reference. "

Similarly, Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of New Diwan Oil Mills vs. CIT (2008) 296 ITR 495) returned the reference unanswered since the assessee remained absent and there was not any assistance from the assessee.

Their Lordships of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. B. Bhattachargee & Another (118 ITR 461 at page 477-478) held that the appeal does not mean, mere filing of the memo of appeal but effectively pursuing the same.

Respectfully following the view taken in the cases cited supra, we dismiss the above appeal for non-prosecution. Before parting, we add that in case the assessee is serious in pursuing the appeal filed then she would be at liberty to pray for a recall of this order by moving an appropriate application.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed for non-prosecution. The decision is pronounced in the open court on 21st Sept., 2016.