Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: ‘F’: NEW DELHI
Before: SMT. DIVA SINGH & SH. O.P. KANT
ORDER PER O.P. KANT, A.M.: This appeal, by the assessee, is directed against order of learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- XVIII, New Delhi, dated 03.12.2012 for assessment year 2009-10.
For the first time, the present appeal came up for hearing before this Bench on 18.02.2014, on which date, the case was adjourned to 01.09.2014 on the request of assessee’s counsel. On 01.09.2014, due to non-functioning of Bench, the case was fixed for 11.02.2015. On 11.02.2015, the case was again adjourned to 18.06.2015 on the request of the assessee’s counsel. Thereafter, on 18.06.2015, 13.07.2015 and 21.10.2015, the case was adjourned due to non- functioning of Bench and fixed for 18.02.2016. On 18.02.2016, when the appeal came up for hearing, the case was adjourned for 14.06.2016 on the written request of both the parties, which was informed to both the parties in the open court. Despite this, on 14.06.2016, when the case was called upon, neither any one responded, nor has any application for adjournment been received on behalf of the assessee. It gives an impression that assessee is not interested in pursuing its 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 it 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 22nd June, 2016.