IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
DELHI BENCH "C" NEW DELHI
BEFORE SMT. DIVA SINGH: JUDICIAL MEMBER
SHRI O.P. KANT : ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
ITA no. 5539 /Del/2015
Asstt. Yrs: 2009-10
Smt. Anjali Tomar, Vs. Income-tax Officer,
A-29, Shastri Nagar, Ward 1(1), Meerut.
PAN: AFYPT 2442 J
( Appellant ) (Respondent)
Appellant by : None
Respondent by : Shri Yatendra Singh Sr. DR
Date of hearing : 17/11/2015.
Date of order : 20/11/2015.
PER O.P. KANT, A.M.:
This appeal, by the assessee, is directed against the order dated 28/03/2014,
passed by the CIT(A), Meerut, for A.Y. 2009-10.
2. None put in appearance on behalf of the assessee at the hearing despite issue
of notice for hearing, through registered post at the address furnished by the
assessee in column 10 of the memo of appeal in form no. 36. The envelope,
containing the notice of hearing has not been returned unserved. It can, therefore,
safely be presumed that the assessee has been served with the notice of hearing. No
application for adjournment of hearing has been received on behalf of the assessee.
It gives an impression that assessee is not interested in pursuing its appeal.
Considering the facts of the case 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), the assessee's appeal is liable to be
dismissed for want of prosecution.
3. The Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Estate of Late
Tukojirao Holkar vs. CWT (223 ITR 480) has 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. "
4. Similarly, Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of New
Diwan Oil Mills vs. CIT (2008) 296 ITR 495) returned the reference
unanswered since the assessee remained absent and there was not any
assistance from the assessee.
5. Their Lordships of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. B.
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.
6. Respectfully following the view taken in the cases cited supra, we
dismiss the appeal for non-prosecution. Before parting, we add that in case
the assessee is serious in pursuing the appeal filed, then it would be at liberty
to pray for a recall of this order by moving an appropriate petition and also
by taking appropriate action to correct the defects pointed out. The Co-
ordinate Bench considering the petition if so moved, if so satisfied with the
explanation and the actions of curing the defects may recall this order. The
said order was pronounced in the open Court in the presence of the parties.
7. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed.
Order pronounced in open court on 20/11/2015.
( DIVA SINGH ) (O.P. KANT)
JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Copy of order to:
5. DR, ITAT, New Delhi.
1. Draft dictated on 18-11.2015 PS
2. Draft placed before author 18.11.2015 PS
3. Draft proposed & placed before the second JM/AM
4. Draft discussed/approved by Second Member. JM/AM
5. Approved Draft comes to the Sr.PS/PS PS/PS
6. Kept for pronouncement on PS
7. File sent to the Bench Clerk PS
8. Date on which file goes to the AR
9. Date on which file goes to the Head Clerk.
10. Date of dispatch of Order.