AVTARA SINGH CHERA,DURGAPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(4), DURGAPUR, DURGAPUR

2. These appeals were listed for hearing on 19.04.2017 and was adjourned to 14.06.2017. When the case was called for hearing today i.e. 14.06.2017 none appeared on behalf of the assessee nor any adjournment was moved on behalf of the assessee. Notice was sent to the assessee by RPAD at the address given by the assessee in Form No.36. The notice was returned unserved as the addressee was not found in the address given in Form No.36. It means that assessee is not interested to prosecute the appeal. Hence the appeal filed by the assessee is liable to be dismissed for non prosecution. For this view we find support from the following decisions :-

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.