2007 (7) TMI 260 - HC - Income Tax

Assessee not appeared even after several opportunities Commissioner held that assessee is not interested in prosecuting appeal on the ground that assessee not appeared in any of seventeen hearings nor gave any justifiable reason for adjournment of the case - Tribunal also found that non-recording of reasons in support of the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) would not amount to committing any illegality assessee s appeal is dismissed

Summary

Issues:
- Denial of opportunity to present the case
- Decision without going into the merits of the case
- Exercising jurisdiction based on presumption

Denial of opportunity to present the case:
The appellant filed an appeal under section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, challenging the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. The issue revolved around whether the authorities were justified in denying the appellant the opportunity to present their case. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) observed that despite multiple hearings fixed for the case, the appellant neither appeared nor provided any written request or reply. The principle of vigilantibus, non dormientibus, jura subveniunt was applied, implying that one who is vigilant, not those who sleep on their rights, is entitled to the law's support. The Tribunal concurred, emphasizing the appellant's failure to seek adjournment or present justifiable reasons for non-appearance. The court found that the appellant had sufficient notice and opportunities to make submissions but failed to do so, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.

Decision without going into the merits of the case:
The assessing authority had assessed the appellant's income, including certain gifts and household withdrawals. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) upheld this assessment, noting the appellant's lack of interest in pursuing the appeal due to non-appearance and failure to provide reasons for adjournment. The Tribunal affirmed this decision, highlighting that the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) adopted the reasoning of the Assessing Officer. Citing the case of Popular Engineering Co. v. ITAT, it was established that the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) is not required to provide elaborate reasons if the Assessing Officer's reasoning is sound. The focus was on ensuring clarity and explicit consideration of the issues in controversy. The court concluded that the Tribunal did not commit any illegality by supporting the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)'s decision, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.

Exercising jurisdiction based on presumption:
The Tribunal found that the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) adhered to the requirements of section 250 of the Act by fixing hearing dates and providing notice to the appellant. Despite numerous opportunities, the appellant failed to appear or request adjournment, indicating a lack of diligence on their part. Additionally, the absence of recorded reasons by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) did not invalidate the decision, as long as the reasoning was based on the Assessing Officer's findings. The court emphasized the need for clear and explicit reasons to demonstrate consideration of the disputed issues. Ultimately, the court determined that no substantial legal questions necessitated the appeal's admission, dismissing it as misconceived.