2015 (4) TMI 296

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....R The petitioner seeks to quash the order dated 30.12.2014 of the first respondent, in and by which, the first respondent dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioner, exparte. 2. Admittedly, the appeal filed by the petitioner was taken up for hearing by the first respondent on 06.09.2012, 24.09.2012, 22.01.2013 and 20.08.2014. In all those hearings, there was no representation for the petit....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the non-appearance of the petitioner or their representative on the hearing dates is neither wilful nor wanton. Therefore, in the interest of justice, one more opportunity shall be given to the petitioner to adjudicate the appeal on merits before the first respondent. 4. On the above contention, this Court heard the learned standing c....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d 20.08.2014 and in all those hearings, there was no representation for the petitioner. Therefore, the first respondent has rightly passed the order dated 30.12.2014 dismissing the appeal preferred by the petitioner for non-prosecution. When the appellant did not turn up to agitate the appeal on merits, the first respondent can only conclude that the assessee is not interested to prosecute the app....