M/S SIKSHA CONSTRUCTION,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WD-51(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

This appeal came for hearing today i.e. on 13.01.2016. The notice was sent to the assessee for hearing by registered post with AD on 07.12.2015 to the address given by the assessee in column no.10 of Form No.36. But the notice returned unserved with the remark by the postal authorities as “Door locked” and the earlier notice also returned unserved with the remark by the postal authorities as “Intimation not claimed”. However no one was present on behalf of the assessee on the date of hearing. Neither an adjournment petition was filed in respect of the above assessee 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.”

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.