Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, BENCH “B”, KOLKATA
Before: Hon’ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, JM & Hon’ble Sri M.Balaganesh, AM]
Per Bench
These appeals by various assesses filed against different orders of CIT(A)s of these appeals pertain to A.Y.1993-94. All these appeals arise out of identical facts and circumstances namely arising out of search in the case of C.R.Bhansali group.
2. These appeals were listed for hearing from time to time. The first hearing of this appeal was on 01.09.2011 on which date Shri P.Kochar and Shri B.C.Surana, Advocatse filed a request for adjournment and the case was adjourned to 18.01.2012. Thereafter on the counsel’s request the hearing was adjourned to 10.05.2012 and 01.10.2012 and 25.02.2013. On 25.02.2013 none appeared on behalf of the assessee and the appeal was adjourned to 01.08.2013. On that date the counsel for the assessee sought adjournment and the Bench imposed a cost of Rs.2500/- in each of the appeals and adjourned the hearing to 01.08.2013. Again none appeared and the case was adjourned to 15.01.2014 and thereafter to 15.05.2014. The Bench did not function on 15.05.2014 and the case was adjourned to 08.10.2014. The Bench did not function on 08.10.2014 and the case was adjourned to 15.01.2015 on which date none appeared on behalf of the assessee. The case was adjourned on 20.04.2015 and 21.07.2015. On 3 to 879 & 886 to 888/Kol/2011 Sidh Resources Pvt.Ltd. and others. A.Yr.1993-94 these dates the Bench did not function and the case was ultimately fixed for hearing on 15.10.2015. Even today when the case was called for hearing none appeared on behalf of the assessee. Neither an adjournment petition was filed in respect of the above assesses. It means that assessees are not interested to prosecute the appeals. Hence the appeals filed by the assessees are 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 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 : “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 assessees, 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 appeals of the assesses are dismissed for non-prosecution. Order pronounced in the open court on 15.10.2015.