2017 (5) TMI 1789 - AT - Income Tax

Appeal Dismissed for Non-Prosecution: Importance of Active Pursuit in Legal Proceedings

The appeal before ITAT DELHI was dismissed for non-prosecution as the Assessee failed to appear despite being duly notified. Citing legal precedents, ... None appeared on behalf of assessee at the time of hearing of appeal - HELD THAT:- As assessee is no more interested in prosecuting the appeal. Hence, the appeal filed by the assessee is liable to be dismissed for non-prosecution. As in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Multiplan India (P) Ltd.[1991 (5) TMI 120 - ITAT DELHI-D] reference filed by the revenue before the Tribunal, which was fixed for hearing. But on the date of hearing nobody represented the revenue/appellant nor any communication for adjournment was received. There was no communication or information as to why the revenue chose to remain absent on that date. The Tribunal on the basis of inherent powers, treated the reference filed by the revenue as un-admitted in view of the provisions of Rule 19 of the Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963. In the result, we treat this appeal as unadmitted and dismiss the same in limine. Issues involved: Dismissal of appeal for non-prosecutionDetailed Analysis:The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal ITAT DELHI was directed against the order of Ld.CIT(A)- IX, New Delhi for the Assessment Year 2004-05. The Assessee was duly notified of the hearing date through registered post, but failed to appear, indicating a lack of interest in prosecuting the appeal. The Tribunal referred to several precedents to support the dismissal for non-prosecution. The Tribunal cited the case of CIT vs. B.N. Bhattachargee emphasizing that an appeal must be effectively pursued, not just filed. Additionally, the Tribunal referenced the case of Estate of late Tukojirao Holkar vs. CWT, where it was held that if a party fails to appear for a hearing or take necessary steps, the court is not obligated to proceed. Furthermore, the Tribunal mentioned the case of Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Multiplan India (P) Ltd., where the Tribunal, due to the absence of the revenue/appellant without any communication or reason, treated the reference as un-admitted. Consequently, the Tribunal in the present case treated the appeal as unadmitted and dismissed it in limine, following the principles established in the aforementioned cases.This judgment underscores the importance of active participation and diligent prosecution of appeals before the Tribunal. Failure to appear or pursue an appeal can result in dismissal for non-prosecution, as highlighted by the Tribunal's reliance on legal precedents emphasizing the need for effective pursuit of appeals. The decision serves as a reminder to parties involved in legal proceedings to fulfill their obligations and actively engage in the process to avoid adverse outcomes such as dismissal for non-prosecution.