Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH : BANGALORE
Before: SHRI N.V. VASUDEVAN & SHRI ABRAHAM P. GEORGE
Date of hearing : 02.06.2015 Date of Pronouncement : 02.06.2015 O R D E R Per N.V. Vasudevan, Judicial Member
This appeal by the assessee is against the order dated 10.1.2014 of the CIT(Appeals)-III, Bangalore relating to assessment year 2006-07.
There were certain defects in the appeal filed by the assessee, which was brought to the assessee’s notice by the Registry by its communication dated 8.5.2014. The defect was not rectified by the assessee. The appeal was fixed for hearing on 2.2.2015. Notice of hearing was duly served on the assessee, but none appeared on behalf of the assessee. An application for adjournment was filed by one H.R. Suresh & Co., CAs. The CAs, however, did not file the Power of Attorney on behalf of the assessee. The case was adjourned to 2.6.2015. On 2.6.2015, none appeared on behalf of the assessee. A letter was, however, filed by one H.R. Suresh & Co., CAs, seeking adjournment. As already stated, the CAs who filed the application for adjournment has not filed any Power of Attorney from the assessee. In these circumstances, we are of the view that the assessee is not serious in pursuing the appeal.
Considering the facts 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) we treat this appeal as unadmitted. Similar view has been taken by the Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar vs. CWT (223 ITR 480) wherein it has been 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.”
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. B. 4.
Bhattacharjee & 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.
Following the ratio of the aforesaid decisions, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed in limine for non-prosecution. However, if the assessee through proper application can satisfy the Tribunal for such non- appearance on the appointed date, the Tribunal, at its discretion, may recall this order.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed.
Pronounced in the open court on this 2nd day of June, 2015.