SAI VIKASH EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,GUWAHATI vs. CIT, (EXEMPTIONS), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

The present appeal came for hearing for the first time on 07.09.2016 and notice was sent by RPAD for hearing on 24.07.2015. Subsequently the case was fixed for hearing on 26.12.2016. Neither an adjournment petition was filed by the assessee nor anybody appeared on behalf of the assessee. Therefore the assessee appears to be not interested to prosecute the appeal and accordingly the appeal tiled by the assessee is liable to be dismissed for non prosecution. In view of the decision 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: Sai Vikash Educational Society vs. CIT, Kol Page 2 "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 unadmitted in view of the provisions of Rule 19 of the Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963.” 4. The assessee shall be free to move the petition before this Tribunal praying for recalling of this order by explaining the sufficient cause for his non appearance.