Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH : BANGALORE
Before: SHRI N.V. VASUDEVAN & SHRI JASON P. BOAZ
Per N.V. Vasudevan, Judicial Member
When the appeal was filed by the assessee, Acknowledge-cum- Notice was given to the assessee in which hearing of the appeal fixed on 5.3.2015 was duly acknowledged to the assessee. However, none appeared for the Assessee at the time of hearing nor any adjournment petition seeking adjournment of the case was filed either. The above conduct on the part of the assessee shows that it is not interested in prosecuting the appeal filed by it.
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. 3.
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.
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 the reasons for such non-appearance on the appointed date, the Tribunal, at its discretion, may consider recall of this order.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed. 5.
Pronounced in the open court on this 20th day of March, 2015.