2015 (7) TMI 1311 - AT - Income Tax

Non-representation on the date of hearing - when the appeal was called out, no one was present on behalf of the assessee - Held that - Till the end of the Board neither the assessee was present nor any request for adjournment had been placed before us. Since in the third round also the position remained the same. As considered that the assessee may not be serious in pursuing the appeal filed. It is further seen that the notice issued on 15.06.2015 sent to the assessee by speed post at the address indicated in Column No-10 in the memo of appeal filed by the assessee returned unserved with comment left without address . Accordingly in the absence of any representation on the part of the assessee seeking time etc. right till the time of the hearing and in fact till the passing of this order, the appeal is dismissed in limine. Support is drawn from the order of the Tribunal in Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. Multi Plan India (P) Ltd. 1991 (5) TMI 120 - ITAT DELHI-D and Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar vs. CWT 1996 (3) TMI 92 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT . - Decided against assessee

Summary

Issues:
Failure of assessee to appear for hearing, Dismissal of appeal due to non-representation, Possibility of recall based on reasonable cause.

Issue 1: Failure of assessee to appear for hearing
The judgment highlights that despite multiple opportunities, the assessee failed to appear for the hearing. The Tribunal noted that no one represented the assessee during the hearing, and no request for adjournment was made. The notice sent to the assessee was returned unserved, indicating a lack of communication. The Tribunal observed a lack of seriousness on the part of the assessee in pursuing the appeal, leading to the decision to dismiss the appeal in limine. The judgment cites precedents to support this decision, emphasizing the importance of proper representation in legal proceedings.

Issue 2: Dismissal of appeal due to non-representation
Due to the continuous absence of the assessee and the failure to provide any representation or seek an adjournment, the Tribunal decided to dismiss the appeal. The judgment mentions that no efforts were made by the assessee to address the situation or provide a valid reason for non-representation. Citing legal precedents, the Tribunal justified the dismissal based on the lack of engagement from the assessee's side throughout the proceedings. The decision to dismiss the appeal was made in the absence of any justifiable cause for non-representation.

Issue 3: Possibility of recall based on reasonable cause
The judgment acknowledges the possibility for the assessee to seek a recall of the order if a reasonable cause for non-representation can be demonstrated. It suggests that if the assessee can establish a valid reason for their absence during the hearing, they may apply for a reconsideration of the decision on its merits. The Tribunal leaves the option open for the assessee to present a case for a recall based on justifiable grounds. This provision indicates a chance for the assessee to rectify the situation if a reasonable cause for non-representation is proven.

In conclusion, the judgment emphasizes the importance of active participation and representation in legal proceedings. It underscores the consequences of non-appearance and the need for a valid reason to support any request for a recall of the decision. The Tribunal's decision to dismiss the appeal due to the continuous absence of the assessee reflects the significance of procedural compliance and engagement in the judicial process.