2019 (5) TMI 1964 - AT - Income Tax

Appeal as dismissed for want of prosecution - HELD THAT - Even the notice of todays hearing was sent to the assessee by mentioning the address M/s Guru Nanak Auto Enterprises Ltd., H.O. Ist Floor, HC Complex, Adjacent N.V. Motors, Rajindera Nagar, Police Line however the notice returned back with the postal remark Left without address. As also noticed that no adjournment application filed by the assessee or by its counsel. Hence, in the absence of the assessee we do not have any option except to dismiss the appeal of the assessee in limine. Therefore, considering the facts and keeping in mind the provisions of Rule 19(2) of the Income-tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963, as was considered in the case of CIT Vs. Multiplan India Ltd, 1991 (5) TMI 120 - ITAT DELHI-D we treat this appeal as unadmitted. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed for want of prosecution. Assessee shall be at liberty to seek recall of this order by showing sufficient and bonafide cause for not receiving /serving of notice at the address given and for non appearance, and if the Bench is so satisfied about the reasons, etc., it can recall the above order. Appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed in limine.

Summary

Issues:
- Appeal against order passed by Ld. CIT(A)-2, Jalandhar for relevant Assessment Year under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
- Non-appearance of the assessee during the hearing.
- Dismissal of the appeal for want of prosecution.
- Possibility for the assessee to seek recall of the order.

The appeal was filed by the assessee against the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A)-2, Jalandhar for the relevant Assessment Year under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Ld. CIT(A) had partly allowed the appeal of the assessee, leading to the current appeal before the Appellate Tribunal. However, during the hearing, no one appeared on behalf of the assessee, despite the notice being sent to the given address. The notice was returned with a postal remark indicating it was left without an address. No adjournment application was filed by the assessee or their counsel. Due to the absence of the assessee, the Tribunal had no choice but to dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. The dismissal was in accordance with Rule 19(2) of the Income-tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963, as previously considered in the case of CIT Vs. Multiplan India Ltd. The Tribunal treated the appeal as unadmitted and provided the assessee with the opportunity to seek a recall of the order by demonstrating sufficient and bonafide cause for not receiving or serving the notice and for non-appearance. If the Bench is satisfied with the reasons presented, it has the authority to recall the order. Consequently, the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed in limine, with the order pronounced in the open Court on 21/05/2019.

---