MOUNT DISTILLERIES LTD.,GANGTOK vs. ITO,WARD-2(4), GANGTOK

This is an appeal by the Assessee against the order dated 31.10.2013 of C.I.T.(A)-Jalpaiguri relating to A.Y.2010-11.

This appeal was listed for hearing on 19.12.2016 and at the request of the assessee’s Authorised Representative the appeal was adjourned to 01.02.2017. On 01.02.2017 the bench did not function and therefore the appeal was adjourned to 06.04.2017. Notice of hearing for hearing on 06.04.2017 was sent to the assessee by RPAD at the address given by the assessee in Form No.36. The notice so sent has not been returned unserved. When the case was called for hearing none appeared on behalf of the assessee. It means that assessee is not interested in prosecuting this 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 :- “1. In the case of CIT vs B.N.Bhattachrgee 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 :

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.