2018 (10) TMI 1441 - AT - Income Tax

Non prosecution of appeal - Rule 19 of the ITAT Rules 1963 - Held that - As the assessee has chosen to be neither present nor represented it can be concluded that the assessee is not serious in pursuing the appeal filed. Therefore in our view the appeal filed by the assessee is liable to be dismissed in limine for non-prosecution. See COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX. VERSUS MULTIPLAN INDIA (PRIVATE) LIMITED. 1991 (5) TMI 120 - ITAT DELHI-D . Thus we dismiss the appeal of the assessee in limine for non-prosecution

Summary

Issues:
Admissibility of appeal for hearing based on non-prosecution by the assessee.

Analysis:
The appeal in question was filed against the order of Ld. CIT(A)-41, New Delhi, for Assessment Year 2011-12. During the hearing, no one appeared on behalf of the assessee, indicating a lack of seriousness in pursuing the appeal. The ITAT Rules, 1963, specifically Rule 19, outline the conditions for the admissibility of an appeal for hearing. The ITAT referred to the case of CIT Vs. Multiplan (India) Pvt. Ltd. where it was emphasized that the mere issuance of a notice does not automatically make the appeal admissible. Non-attendance by the assessee renders the appeal defective, requiring correction by providing the proper address. The ITAT, following the legal position and judicial precedents, dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution, allowing the assessee the opportunity to approach the ITAT for a recall of the order if a reasonable cause for non-representation is demonstrated.

Furthermore, the judgment cited the decision of the Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar vs. CWT, stating that the court is not obliged to answer a reference if the party fails to appear for the hearing or does not facilitate the preparation of necessary documents. Similarly, the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of New Diwan Oil Mills vs. CIT returned a reference unanswered due to the absence of the assessee and lack of assistance. Additionally, the Hon'ble Supreme Court's ruling in the case of CIT vs. B. Bhattachargee emphasized that filing an appeal is not sufficient; active pursuit of the appeal is essential for its consideration.

In conclusion, the ITAT, in line with the legal provisions and judicial precedents, dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution. The judgment highlighted the importance of adherence to procedural rules and active participation in the appeal process. The assessee was granted the opportunity to seek a recall of the order if a valid reason for non-representation was established. The dismissal of the appeal was pronounced on 25/10/2018.