RAM GOPAL SARAF,KOLKATA vs. THE DCIT, CC-XXVII, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

These appeals of the different assessees arise out of the independent orders of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Central-II, Kolkata [in short the ld CITA] in Appeal Nos.93 & 94/CC-XXVI/CIT(A)C-II/09-10 dated 28.02.2014 in the case of Hindustan Storage & Distribution Company Pvt. Ltd. for the assessment years 2006-07 and 2007-08 respectively and the separate orders of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals), Central-II, Kolkata in Appeal Nos. 86 & 87/CC- XXVII/CIT(A)C-II/09-10 dated 26.02.2014 and 28.02.2014 respectively in the case of Ram Gopal Saraf for the assessment years 2006-07 and 2007-08 respectively, passed against the orders passed by the DCIT, CC-XXVII, Kolkata [in short the ld. AO] under 2 Hindustan Storage & Distribution Co. Ltd. & Ram Gopal Saraf A.Yr.2006-07 to 2007-08 section 153C / 153A/ 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) as the case may be, dated 10.07.2009 for the assessment years 2006-07 to 2007- 08 respectively for both the assessees.

These appeals were listed for hearing on several dates i.e. 30.01.2017, 12.04.2017, 13.06.2017 & 31.08.2017. On 31.08.2017, the cases were adjourned to 24.10.2017 and both the counsels were duly informed about the same. When the cases were called for hearing on 24.10.2017, none appeared on behalf of the assessees nor an adjournment petitions were filed on behalf of the assessees. It means that assessees are not interested to prosecute these appeals. Hence these appeals filed by different assessees are liable to be dismissed for non prosecution. For this view, we find support from the following decisions :- “1. In the case of CIT vs B.N.Bhattachrjee and another, reported in 118 ITR 461 [relevant pages 477 & 478] wherein their Lordships have held that : “The appeal does not mean merely filing of the appeal but effectively pursuing it.” 2. In the case of Estate of late Tukojirao Holkar vs CWT; 223 ITR 480 (MP) while dismissing the reference made at the instance of the assessee in default made following observation in their order : “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.”

In the case of Commissioner of Income-tax vs Multiplan India (P) Ltd.: 38 ITD 320(Del), the appeal filed by the revenue before the Tribunal, which was fixed for hearing. But on the date of hearing nobody represented the revenue/appellant nor any communication for adjournment was received. There was no communication or information as to why the revenue chose to remain absent on that date. The Tribunal on the basis of inherent powers, treated the appeal filed by the revenue as un admitted in view of the provisions of Rule 19 of the Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963.

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are dismissed for non-prosecution.