Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D”, BENCH KOLKATA
Before: SHRI S.S.VISWANETHRA RAVI, JM & DR. A.L.SAINI, AM
O R D E R
Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, AM:
This is an appeal by the assessee against the order dated 31.03.2016 of CIT(A)-7, Kolkata, relating to AY 2007-08.
2. This appeal was listed for hearing today i.e. on 04.01.2017 as per the adjournment letter filed by the assessee on 28.11.2016. However no one was present on behalf of the assessee on the date of hearing. Neither any further adjournment petition was filed in respect of the above assessee. 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 :- “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.
3. Considering the above judicial pronouncements, we dismiss the appeal of the assessee for non-prosecution.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed for non- prosecution. Order pronounced in the open court on this 04/01/2017.