Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCHES : SMC-I : NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI R.S. SYAL
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES : SMC-I : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R.S. SYAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & 5479/Del/2015 Assessment Years : 2006-07 & 2005-06 Naresh Sharma, Vs. ITO, A-5, Nehru Ground, Ward-11(1), NIT, Faridabad. Faridabad. PAN: ALJPS9420Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : None Department By : Shri Deepak Garg, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 22.06.2016 Date of Pronouncement : 22.06.2016 ORDER
These appeals by the assessee are directed against two separate orders passed by the CIT(A) on 05.03.2015 in relation to the Assessment Years 2006-07 & 2005-06.
2. When the matter was called up for hearing today, no one has appeared on behalf of the assessee. The assessee has not filed any adjournment application also. The notice of hearing sent to the assessee to the address given in column No.10 of Form 36 has not been returned unserved. In these circumstances, it appears that the assessee is not interested in prosecuting his appeals. The appeals filed by the assessee are, therefore, liable to be dismissed, for non-prosecution. Our above view finds support from the following decisions:- 1. CIT vs. B.N. Bhattachargee & anr., 118 ITR 461, wherein their Lordships have held: “The appeal does not mean merely filing of the appeal but effectively pursuing it.”
Estate of late Tukojirao Holkar vs. CWT, 223 ITR 480 (M.P.), wherein, while dismissing the reference made at the instance of the assessee in default, their Lordships made the following observation:- “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 reference, the court is not bound to answer the reference.”
3. Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Multiplan India (P.) Ltd, 38 ITD 320 (Del.),wherein the appeal filed by the revenue before the Tribunal, 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 2
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 unadmitted in view of the provision of Rule 19 of the Income-tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963.
We also find that even otherwise, these appeals are to be dismissed as the appeals are barred by time limitation and no application for condonation of delay in filing the appeals, etc. has been filed by the assessee.
In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed for non-prosecution.