Non prosecution may cause dismissed the appeal


Court :
INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

Brief :
The appeal was originally fixed for hearing on 10.9.2012 on which date assessee’s counsel took date and the case was adjourned to 17.1.2013. On 17.1.2013, again counsel of the assessee took adjournment and case was fixed for 22.5.2013 i.e. today. Nobody appeared today nor any application for adjournment was filed. It appears that the assessee is not interested in prosecuting the appeal. Hence the appeal filed by the assessee is liable to be dismissed for non prosecution

Citation :
M/s DMC education Ltd., H-108, IInd Floor, New Asiatic Bldg., Connaught Place, N. Delhi. (Appellant) Vs. ACIT,Central Circle-9,New Delhi. (Respondent)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

(DELHI BENCH ‘B’ NEW DELHI)

 

BEFORE SHRI U.B.S. BEDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER

AND

SHRI T.S. KAPOOR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

 

I.T.A. No.3619/Del/2012

Assessment year: 2007-08

 

M/s DMC education Ltd.,

H-108, IInd Floor, New Asiatic Bldg.,

Connaught Place, N. Delhi.

(Appellant)

 

Vs.

 

ACIT,

Central Circle-9,

New Delhi.

 (Respondent)

 

PAN /GIR/No.AACCD-5023-B

 

Appellant by: None.

Respondent by: Shri DK Mishra, CIT-DR.

 

ORDER

PER TS KAPOOR, AM:

 

The appeal was originally fixed for hearing on 10.9.2012 on which date assessee’s counsel took date and the case was adjourned to 17.1.2013. On 17.1.2013, again counsel of the assessee took adjournment and case was fixed for 22.5.2013 i.e. today. Nobody appeared today nor any application for adjournment was filed. It appears that the assessee is not interested in prosecuting the appeal. Hence the appeal filed by the assessee is liable to be dismissed for non prosecution. In our above view, we find support from the following decisions:-

 

1. In the case of CIT v. B.N. Bhattachargee & Another 118 ITR 461 (relevant pages 477 & 478) wherein their Lordships have held that “The appeal does not mean merely filing of appeal but effectively of pursuing it.”

 

2. In the case of Estate of Late Tukoji Rao Holker v. CWT 223 IR 480 (MP) while dismissing the reference made at the instance of assessee in default made following observations 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, this court is not bound to answer the reference.

 

3. In the case of CIT v. Multiplan India Pvt. 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/applicant, nor any communication for adjournment was received. There was no communication or information as to why revenue choose to remain absent on that date. The Tribunal on the basis of inherent power treated the appeal filed by the revenue as un-admitted in view of Rule 19 of the Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963.

 

Therefore, keeping in view the above, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed for non prosecution.

 

2. Order pronounced in the open court on 22nd day of May, 2013.

 

Sd/- Sd/-

(U.B.S. BEDI) (T.S. KAPOOR)

JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

 

Dt. 22.5.2013.

HMS

 

Copy forwarded to:-

 

1. The appellant

2. The respondent

3. The CIT

4. The CIT (A)-, New Delhi.

5. The DR, ITAT, Loknayak Bhawan, Khan Market, New Delhi.

 

True copy.

 

By Order

(ITAT, New Delhi).

 

Date of hearing 22.5.2013

Date of Dictation 22.5.2013

Date of Typing 22.5.2013

Date of order signed by both the Members & pronouncement 22.5.2013

 

Date of order uploaded on net & sent to the Bench concerned 24.5.2013

 

Diganta Paul
on 08 June 2013
Published in Taxation
Views : 1111


 Recent Comments

Total: 0







×

  LAWyersclubindia Menu

web analytics