2018 (8) TMI 1134 - AT - Income Tax

Disallowance made by the AO u/s. 37 being interest paid on late payment of TDS - Held that - It is noticed that when the matter came up for hearing, none appeared on behalf of the assessee-appellant despite notice having been sent by Registered Post (AD on record). Previously, the appeal was fixed for hearing on 21/05/2018 and assessee did not present. It thus appears that the assessee is not interested to proceed with the matter. - Appeal dismissed - Decided against the assessee.

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Disallowance of interest paid on late payment of TDS under section 37
2. Non-appearance of the assessee during the hearing

Analysis:

Issue 1: Disallowance of interest paid on late payment of TDS under section 37
The appellant filed an appeal against the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) for Assessment Year 2012-13. The appeal raised concerns regarding the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer under section 37 for interest paid on late payment of TDS amounting to ?1,18,360. The appellant argued that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal and should have considered the judgments of the Madras High Court, Karnataka High Court, and Delhi High Court in support of their case. However, during the hearing, the appellant did not appear despite receiving notice, indicating a lack of interest in pursuing the appeal. Citing legal precedents, including judgments by the Supreme Court and various High Courts, the Tribunal concluded that the appellant's non-appearance demonstrated a lack of intent to prosecute the appeal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution.

Issue 2: Non-appearance of the assessee during the hearing
The Tribunal noted the absence of the assessee during the hearing, despite sending notices via Registered Post. This lack of participation on the part of the appellant, along with previous instances of non-appearance, led the Tribunal to infer that the appellant was not interested in pursuing the appeal. Citing legal precedents that emphasize the need for active pursuit of appeals, the Tribunal highlighted that the act of filing an appeal implies a commitment to follow through with the proceedings. Drawing from decisions by the Supreme Court, High Courts, and the ITAT, the Tribunal concluded that the appellant's repeated non-appearance indicated a lack of intent to prosecute the appeal, resulting in the dismissal of the appeal.

In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee due to non-prosecution, as evidenced by the lack of participation during the hearing despite receiving notices. The decision underscored the importance of actively pursuing appeals and engaging in the legal process to seek redressal effectively.