2018 (10) TMI 1740 - AT - Income Tax

Non prosecution of appeal - notice sent to proper address - HELD THAT - When the notice is sent to proper address of the assessee as provided by them in Form No. 36 through Registered mail with postage prepaid, if the assessee was to be found therein, the notice would have been served. If for any reason the assessee is absent temporarily, it is for the assessee to make arrangement with the Postal Department either to deliver it to some other person, or to re-direct it to an address where the assessee could be found or to detain the mail till the assessee comes back and claims the same. Even if the assessee shifts from that place, it is for the assessee to notify the new address either to the Revenue or to the Tribunal or to the Postal Department. Obviously the assessee had not taken any of these steps and the non-service of notice in this matter is solely attributable to the conduct of the assessee. No option, but to infer that the assessee lost interest in these matters, and we are left with no option but to hold that the appeals of the assessee are liable to be dismissed for non prosecution. We find support from the decision in Commissioner of Income-tax vs Multiplan India (P) Ltd. 1991 (5) TMI 120 - ITAT DELHI-D - Decided against assessee.

Summary

Issues: Non-representation of assessee leading to dismissal of appeals for non-prosecution

Issue 1: Lack of Representation by the Assessee
The judgment involves five appeals by the Assessee against a common order passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). The Assessee failed to appear on multiple occasions despite notices being sent to the address provided. The Tribunal highlighted that the responsibility lies with the Assessee to ensure proper receipt of notices and to update their address with the relevant authorities. Due to the continuous absence of the Assessee, the Tribunal inferred that the Assessee had lost interest in the cases, leading to the decision to dismiss the appeals for non-prosecution.

Issue 2: Legal Precedent and Decision
The Tribunal cited the case of Commissioner of Income-tax vs Multiplan India (P) Ltd., where a similar lack of representation by the appellant led to the appeal being treated as unadmitted. The Tribunal invoked its inherent powers and the provisions of Rule 19 of the Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963, to dismiss the appeals filed by the Assessee. The judgment emphasized that the decision to dismiss the appeals was in line with legal precedents and established rules governing non-prosecution due to non-representation.

Issue 3: Opportunity for Assessee
Despite the dismissal of the appeals, the judgment allowed the Assessee the option to approach the Tribunal to request a recall of the order. The Assessee was given the opportunity to provide reasons for non-compliance and to present explanations for the lack of representation in the proceedings. The Tribunal maintained a stance of procedural fairness by offering the Assessee a chance to address the non-prosecution issue and seek a potential remedy through an application for recalling the order.

In conclusion, the judgment by the Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi highlighted the importance of timely representation by the Assessee in legal proceedings. The decision to dismiss the appeals for non-prosecution was based on the Assessee's repeated absence and failure to engage in the legal process. By referencing legal precedent and procedural rules, the Tribunal upheld the principle that active participation and compliance are essential in maintaining the integrity of legal proceedings.