2019 (3) TMI 58 - AT - Income Tax

Appeal Dismissed for Non-Prosecution: Assessee Fails to Appear, Emphasizing Need for Active Pursuit

The ITAT Delhi dismissed the appeal filed by the Assessee for Assessment Year 2007-08 due to non-prosecution, as the Assessee failed to appear during the ... Non-prosecution of appeal by assessee - HELD THAT:- As relying on COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX. VERSUS MULTIPLAN INDIA (PRIVATE) LIMITED. [1991 (5) TMI 120 - ITAT DELHI-D] we dismiss the appeal of the assessee in limine for non-prosecution. We wish to clarify that the assessee will be at liberty to approach ITAT for recall of this order and for restoration of this appeal under relevant provisions of law if the assessee is able to show that there was reasonable cause for non representation on the part of the assessee on the date of hearing. Issues:Non-prosecution of appeal by the assessee before ITAT Delhi for Assessment Year 2007-08.Analysis:1. The appeal filed by the Assessee was against the order of Ld. CIT(A)-23, New Delhi, for Assessment Year 2007-08. During the hearing, no one appeared on behalf of the assessee. The ITAT noted that the assessee's absence indicated a lack of seriousness in pursuing the appeal.2. The ITAT referred to Rule 19 of the ITAT Rules, 1963, which outlines the conditions for the admissibility of an appeal for hearing. The rule clarifies that the mere issuance of a notice does not signify the admission of the appeal.3. Citing the case of CIT Vs. Multiplan (India) Pvt. Ltd., the ITAT emphasized that the issuance of a notice under Rule 19 does not automatically make the appeal admissible. Non-attendance by the appellant renders the appeal defective, requiring correction by providing the correct address.4. The judgment also referred to decisions by various High Courts and the Supreme Court on non-prosecution of appeals. The Madhya Pradesh High Court held that failure to appear at the hearing may result in the court not answering the reference. Similarly, the Punjab & Haryana High Court returned a reference unanswered due to the absence of the assessee.5. Quoting the Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. B. Bhattachargee and Another, the ITAT reiterated that merely filing a memo of appeal does not suffice; active pursuit of the appeal is essential.6. Consequently, the ITAT dismissed the appeal in limine for non-prosecution, in line with the legal position and judicial precedents discussed. However, the assessee was granted the liberty to approach the ITAT for the recall of the order and restoration of the appeal if a reasonable cause for non-representation could be demonstrated.7. The final order was pronounced on 20.02.2019, dismissing the appeal filed by the Assessee in limine.