S.K. Gupta v. ACIT, Central Circle-9, New Delhi
[Citation -2016-LL-0920-56]
| Citation | 2016-LL-0920-56 |
|---|---|
| Appellant Name | S.K. Gupta |
| Respondent Name | ACIT, Central Circle-9, New Delhi |
| Court | ITAT-Delhi |
| Relevant Act | Income-tax |
| Date of Order | 20/09/2016 |
| Assessment Year | 2005-06 |
| Judgment | View Judgment |
| Keyword Tags | application for adjournment |
| Bot Summary: | Earlier on 22.12.2015, when the case came up for hearing, on the written request of assessees counsel the case was adjourned to 09.05.2016, which was informed to both the parties. On 09.05.2016, due to non-functioning of Bench, the case was adjourned to 19.09.2016 and notice regarding next date of hearing was also issued to the assessee through RPAD 2 ITA Nos. Considering the facts of the case and keeping in view the provisions of Rule 19(2) of the Income-tax Rules, 1963 as were considered in the case of CIT vs. Multiplan India Ltd.,(Del), the assessee s appeals are liable to be dismissed for want of prosecution. The Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar vs. CWT has held as under: if the party, at whose instance the reference is made, fails 'to appear at the hearing, or fails in taking steps for preparation of the paper books so as to enable hearing of the reference, the court is not bound to answer the reference. Hon'ble Punjab Haryana High Court in the case of New Diwan Oil Mills vs. CIT 296 ITR 495) returned the reference unanswered since the assessee remained absent and there was not any assistance from the assessee. Their Lordships of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. B. Bhattachargee Another held that the appeal does not mean, mere filing of the memo of appeal but effectively pursuing the same. Respectfully following the view taken in the cases cited supra, we dismiss the above appeals for non-prosecution. |