MS Payal Dayal Mathew, D-12, Jangpura-B, New Delhi. Vs. ITO,Ward-37 (1), New Delhi.
February, 21st 2014
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
(DELHI BENCH `F' NEW DELHI)
BEFORE SMT. DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER
SHRI T.S. KAPOOR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Assessment year : 2009-10
MS Payal Dayal Mathew, ITO,
D-12, Jangpura-B, Ward-37 (1),
New Delhi. V. New Delhi.
PAN /GIR/No.AIWPM 3472-C
Appellant by : None.
Respondent by : Ms. Meenakshi Vohra, Sr. DR.
PER TS KAPOOR, AM:
The appeal was originally fixed for hearing on 27.8.2013 on
which date an adjournment was granted and thereafter the appeal was
fixed for hearing on 4.2.2014. On the date of hearing, nobody was
present. Therefore, the appeal was passed over. In the second round
also, nobody was present therefore again the appeal was passed over.
In the third round also, there was nobody present on behalf of
assessee. 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
2 ITA No1141/Del/2013
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
2. Order pronounced in the open court on 4th day of February,
(DIVA SINGH) (T.S. KAPOOR)
JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
3 ITA No1141/Del/2013
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.
(ITAT, New Delhi).
Date of hearing 04.02.2014
Date of Dictation 04.02.2014
Date of Typing 04.02.2014
Date of order signed by 04.02.2014
both the Members &
Date of order uploaded on net
& sent to the Bench concerned.