Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi
Ajit Singh Bagga, New Delhi vs Acit, New Delhi on 2 May, 2018
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
DELHI BENCH ' A' NEW DLEHI
BEFORE SHRI G.D. AGRAWAL, PRESIDENT
AND
SHRI K. NARASIMHA CHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER
I.T.A. No.95/Del/2015
Assessment Year: 2006-07
M/r. Ajit Singh Bagga, vs Asstt. Commissioner of Income-tax,
M-274, Guru Harkishan Nagar, Circle 38(1), New Delhi.
New Delhi.
(PAN: AFAPB7451D)
(Appellant) (Respondent)
Appellant by: None
Respondent by: Shri Ravikant Gupta, Sr. DR
ORDER
Date of Hearing: 02.05.2018
Date of Pronouncement: 02.05.2018
PER K. NARASIMHA CHARY, JM
Aggrieved by the order of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-XXVIII), New Delhi (for short "CIT)A))"}) dated 1.10.2014, assessee preferred this appeal.
2. When the matter is called today, there is no representation for the assessee. On an earlier occasion, i.e. on 28.02.2018, none appeared on behalf of the assessee. Notice is issued in this matter to the assessee to the addressed furnished in Form No 36. When the notice is sent to proper address of the 2 assessee as provided by them in Form No. 36 through Registered mail with postage prepaid, if the assessee was to be found therein the notice would have been served. If for any reason the assessee is absent temporarily, it is for the assessee to make arrangement with the Postal Department either to deliver it to some other person, or to re-direct it to an address where the assessee could be found or to detain the mail delivery the assessee comes back and claims the same. Even if the assessee shifts from that place, it is for the assessee to notify the new address either to the Revenue or to the Tribunal or to the Postal Department. Obviously the assessee had not taken any of these steps and the non-service of notice in this matter is solely attributable to the conduct of the assessee.
3. In these circumstances, we find no option, but to infer that the assessee lost interest in this matter, and we are left with no option but to hold that the appeal of the assessee is liable to be dismissed for non prosecution. We find support from the decision in Commissioner of Income-tax vs Multiplan India (P) Ltd.: 38 ITD 320(Del) wherein there was no representation for the appellant in the appeal filed before the Tribunal on the date of hearing, nor any communication for adjournment was received as to why the appellant had chosen to remain absent on that date. The Tribunal on the basis of inherent powers, treated the appeal filed by the assessee as unadmitted in view of the provisions of Rule 19 of the Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963. Respectfully following the said decision, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed for non- prosecution.
4. The assessee, if so desire, shall be free to move this Tribunal praying for recalling this order and explaining reasons for non-compliance etc. 3
5. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed for non-prosecution.
Order pronounced in the Open Court on 2nd May, 2018.
(G.D. AGRAWAL) (K. NARASIMHA CHARY)
PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER
Dated: 2nd May, 2018
'VJ'
Copy forwarded to:
1. Appellant
2. Respondent
3. CIT
4. CIT(A)
5. DR, ITAT By order
Asstt. Registrar