Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C”, BENCH KOLKATA
Before: SHRI A.T.VARKEY, JM & DR. A.L.SAINI, AM
Date of Hearing : 16/01/2017 Date of Pronouncement : 16/01/2017 O R D E R
Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, AM
This is an appeal by the assessee against the order dated 02.02.2012 of CIT(A)-Durgapur, relating to AY 2008-09.
2. At the outset, we noted that there is delay in filing the appeal for 621 days. The assessee did not file an application for condonation of delay. The Bench has been asking the assessee to file the application for condonation of delay since long but application has not been filed by the assessee so far. The Assistant Registrar of the Registry has sent a show cause notice on 31.10.2013, which reads as under :- In the case of Sankar Prasad Gupta -Vs- ITO-Ward-1(2), Durgapur Assessment Year : 2008-09
Sankar Prasad Gupta A.Yr.2008-09 “The appeal/appeals/Applications is/are prima facie time-barred by 561 days and the Appellant/Applicant is called upon to show cause as to why it should not be dismissed as time-barred or to apply for condoning the delay. Sd/- Assistant Registrar From the above, it shows that the assessee is not interested to prosecute the appeal. The Bench has adjourned this appeal on the request of the assessee on 23.05.2016, 21.07.2016, 21.09.2016 and 05.12.2016 and on each occasion the Bench has asked the assessee to file petition for condonation of delay but the same has not been filed so far by the assessee. Therefore, based on the above facts, we do not have any option but to dismiss the appeal 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.
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.
Sankar Prasad Gupta A.Yr.2008-09 3. The assessee, if so desired, shall be free to move this Tribunal praying for recalling this order and explaining reasons for non-compliance etc. then this order may be recalled.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed for non- prosecution.
Order pronounced in the Court on 16/01/2017