BENGAL FERTILIZER & CHEMICALS,UTTAR DINAJPUR vs. A.C..I.T CIR - 2,JALPAIGURI, JALPAIGURI

This appeal was listed for hearing on 14 occasions. At least on nine occasions notice was sent to the assessee by RPAD at the address given by the assessee in Form No.36. But none appeared on behalf of the assesse when the case was called for hearing today i.e. 19.10.2016. 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.” 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.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed for non-prosecution.