SURINDER KUMAR GUPTA,DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

At the time of hearing none put in appearance on behalf of the assessee despite personal knowledge of the date of hearing as is apparent from the order sheet dated 09.11.2015, when the hearing was adjourned at the request of assessee’s counsel to 11.12.2015 and both the parties were intimated of the date fixed in the open court. This time the assessee has not cared even to apply for adjournment. It gives an impression that the assessee is not serious in pursuing the present appeal filed. Considering the facts of the case and keeping in view the provisions of rule 19(2) of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal Rules as were considered in the case of CIT vs. Multiplan India Ltd., (38 ITD 320)(Del), the assessee’s appeal is liable to be dismissed for want of prosecution.

The Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar vs. CWT (223 ITR 480) has held as under:

"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. " 4. Similarly, Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of New Diwan Oil Mills vs. CIT (2008) 296 ITR 495) returned the reference unanswered since the assessee remained absent and there was not any assistance from the assessee.

Their Lordships of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. B. Bhattachargee & Another (118 ITR 461 at page 477-478) held that the appeal does not mean, mere filing of the memo of appeal but effectively pursuing the same.

Respectfully following the View taken in the cases cited supra, we dismiss the appeal for non-prosecution.