Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH : KOLKATA
Before: Hon’ble Sri P.M.Jagtap, AM ]
Date of Hearing : 25.04.2016. Date of Pronouncement : 25.4.2016 ORDER This appeal filed by the Assessee is directed against the order of ld. CIT(A)-7, Kolkata dated 09.12.2015.
At the time of hearing fixed in this case on 25.04.2016 i.e. today none appeared on behalf of the assessee. Even the notice sent to the assessee by RPAD at the address given in the appeal memorandum has come back undelivered from the postal authorities with the remark “no such company at the address/address insufficient” Thus it is clear that the assessee has not even bothered to inform the new address, if any, in order to enable the registry to serve the notice of hearing. Keeping in view this approach of the assessee, it appears that he is not seriously interested in prosecuting this appeal before the Tribunal. Hence the appeal filed by the assessee is liable to be dismissed for non prosecution. For this view I find support from the following decisions :-
“1. In the case of CIT vs B.N.Bhattachargee 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 : Housing & Infrastructure Lted.-A.Y.2008-09 1
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 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.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed for non-prosecution.