S. L. ROY & SONS,DURGAPUR vs. ACIT, CIR-2, DURGAPUR, DURGAPUR

O R D E R

Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, AM: These two captioned appeals filed by the assessee, pertaining to the assessment years 2003-04 & 2005-06, are directed against the common order passed by ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- Durgapur, in Appeal Nos.4&5/CIT(A)/DGP/08-09, dated 11.11.2008, which in turn arise out of the common order passed by the Assessing Officer (AO) Under Section.144/1447of the Income Tax Act 1961, (in short the ‘Act’), dated 13.12.2007. 2. Both these appeals came for hearing today i.e. on 28.10.20016. The notice was sent to the assessee for hearing by registered post with AD on 28.06.2016 to the address given by the assessee in column no.10 of Form No.36. However no one was present on behalf of the assessee on the date of hearing. Neither an adjournment petition was filed in respect of the above assessee, it means that assessee is not interested to prosecute the appeals. Hence both the appeals filed by the assessee S.L.Roy & Sons are 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 : “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.” 3. 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. 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. 4. In the result, both appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed for non-prosecution. Order pronounced in the open court on this 28/10/2016. (S.S.VISWANETHRA RAVI) (DR. A.L.SAINI) "या"यक सद"य / JUDICIAL MEMBER