2018 (12) TMI 817 - AT - Income Tax

Levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - assessee has been notified the date of hearing twice by Registered Post. However none appeared on behalf of the assessee - Held that - It appears that assessee is no more interested in prosecuting the appeal. The appeal of assessee is therefore liable to be dismissed. See MULTIPLAN INDIA (PRIVATE) LIMITED. 1991 (5) TMI 120 - ITAT DELHI-D

Summary

Issues:
Challenging the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961.

Analysis:
The appeal was filed by the Assessee against the Order of the Ld. CIT(A)-9, New Delhi, challenging the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the Assessment Year 2004-2005. The Assessee was duly notified of the hearing date twice by Registered Post, but no one appeared on behalf of the Assessee. It was observed that the Assessee seemed disinterested in prosecuting the appeal, leading to the conclusion that the Assessee's appeal should be dismissed.

Legal Precedents:
The decision to dismiss the appeal was made in accordance with Rule 19(2) of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules and following precedents set by the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal, including the case of Multiplan India Ltd., 38 ITD 320 (Del.); the Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court decision in the case of Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar vs. CWT 223 ITR 480 (MP); and the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. B. Bhattachargee & Another (118 ITR 461 at page 477-478). The Supreme Court ruling emphasized that merely filing an appeal is not enough; it must be effectively pursued. Therefore, based on these legal precedents, the Assessee's appeal was dismissed as un-admitted.

Conclusion:
As a result of the above considerations and legal precedents, the appeal of the Assessee was dismissed. The order was pronounced in the open Court, finalizing the decision.