In the absence of appearance on the date of hearing and absence of application for adjournment may cause the appeal dismissed

Dyna Hitech Power Systems Ltd. Vs ACIT (ITAT Mumbai) -  When the matter was called on for hearing, nobody appeared on behalf of the assessee nor was any application for adjournment filed. From the acknowledgement-cum-notice, it is transpired that the assessee’s representative has noted the date of hearing, as is evident from his signature on the acknowledgement slip on 14.3.2011. It is, therefore, inferred that the assessee is not interested in pursuing the appeal which is hereby dismissed for non-prosecution following the order of the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in the case of CIT vs. Multiplan India (P) Ltd. (1991) 38 ITD 320 (Del). and also the judgment of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Chemipol v UOI, dated 17th September, 2009 (BHC).

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI

I.T.A No.2050/ Mum/2011 – Assessment year: 2006-07

Dyna Hitech Power Systems Ltd.

Vs

ACIT 8(3)

Date of Hearing: 2.1.2012

Date of pronouncement: 2 -1-2012

O R D E R

Per Pramod Kumar:

1. This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 7.12.2010 of the CIT(A)-16, Mumbai, in the matter of assessment year 143(3) of the Income tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 2006-07.

2. When the matter was called on for hearing, nobody appeared on behalf of the assessee nor was any application for adjournment filed. From the acknowledgement-cum-notice, it is transpired that the assessee’s representative has noted the date of hearing, as is evident from his signature on the acknowledgement slip on 14.3.2011. It is, therefore, inferred that the assessee is not interested in pursuing the appeal which is hereby dismissed for non-prosecution following the order of the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in the case of CIT vs. Multiplan India (P) Ltd. (1991) 38 ITD 320 (Del). and also the judgment of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Chemipol v UOI, dated 17th September, 2009 (BHC).

3. In the result, appeal is dismissed for want of prosecution.

Pronounced in the open court on 2nd January, 2012

Related posts:

1. No lawyer, No hearing, No appeal; Court should not decide a criminal case against the accused in the absence of his counsel -SC
2. Tribunal has inherent power to dismiss an appeal for non-appearance of appellant
3. If Tribunal Passed An Order In Absence Of Appearance By The Appellant, It Had To Pass The Order On Merits
4. Tribunal may treat Appeal as un-admitted for non attendance with a right to appellant to make application for recall of order
5. Appeal can not be dismissed on default to pay costs