Rule 19 applied for dismissing in the absence of prosecution of appeal

Last updated: 21 August 2012

Court :
INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

Brief :
The notice was given to assessee fixing the date of hearing on 01.08.2012 through notice board. But no one appeared on behalf of the assessee. Nor there is any application for adjournment. In view of above, it appears that assessee is not interested in prosecuting this appeal. Hence this appeal of the assessee is liable to be dismissed for non-prosecution. In this regard, we are supported by the decision in the case of CIT Vs B.N. Bhattachargee and another, reported in 118 ITR 460 (relevant pages 477 & 478) wherein their Lordships have held that: “The appeal does not mean merely filing of the appeal but effectively pursuing it.”

Citation :
M/s. Idea International Pvt. Ltd., 36/40, Mahalaxmi Bridge Arcade, Mahalaxmi, Mumbai-400 034 PAN-AABCI 1527J Vs. The ACIT, Circle 6(1), Mumbai (Appellant) (Respondent)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

MUMBAI BENCH ‘I’ MUMBAI

BEFORE SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND

SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

ITA No.2597/Mum/2011

Assessment Year- 2006-07

M/s. Idea International Pvt. Ltd.,

36/40, Mahalaxmi Bridge Arcade,

Mahalaxmi,

Mumbai-400 034

PAN-AABCI 1527J

Vs.

The ACIT, Circle 6(1),

Mumbai

(Appellant) (Respondent)

Appellant by: None

Respondent by: Shri K.G. Kutty

Date of Hearing: 01.08.2012

Date of pronouncement:01.08.2012

O R D E R

PER N.K. BILLAIYA (AM):

The assessee has filed this appeal for assessment year 2006-07 against the order of Ld. CIT(A) dt. 4.1.2011 .

2. The notice was given to assessee fixing the date of hearing on 01.08.2012 through notice board. But no one appeared on behalf of the assessee. Nor there is any application for adjournment. In view of above, it appears that assessee is not interested in prosecuting this appeal. Hence this appeal of the assessee is liable to be dismissed for non-prosecution. In this regard, we are supported by the decision in the case of CIT Vs B.N. Bhattachargee and another, reported in 118 ITR 460 (relevant pages 477 & 478) wherein their Lordships have held that:

“The appeal does not mean merely filing of the appeal but effectively pursuing it.”

4. In this regard we are also supported by the decision in the case of CIT Vs. Multiplan India (P) Ltd. 38 ITD 320 (Del).

5. In view of the above and also considering the provisions of Rule 19 of the Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963, appeal of the assessee is dismissed.

6. In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed for non-prosecution.

Order pronounced in the Open Court at the time of hearing i.e. on 1^st August, 2012.

Sd/- Sd/-

(VIJAY PAL RAO) (N.K. BILLAIYA)

Judicial Member Accountant Member

Mumbai, Dated 1st August, 2012

Copy to:

1. The Appellant

2. The Respondent