1980 PLP (Trib (PTD)

I. N. Pasha and A. A. Gangat, C. A. for Appellant. G. R. Ghayyur, D. R. for Respondent. A.A.ZUBERI (MEMBER).‑‑This appeal at the instance of the Department impugns order of the learned Appellate Assistant Commis sioner . . . . . . Ranges passed on ‑3‑3‑1976 on Appeal No. 105/KC/A of 1975‑76 relating to Assessment year 1972‑

73. The case was fixed for hearing on 23‑4‑1978 but the Departmental Representative was not present when the case was called out. We could have proceeded to hear the appeal with the help of the counsel for the respon dent and to have decided it on 'merit', but considering the extent of relief which ran into substantial amounts and the quantum of tax involved we thought it fit to extend all possible concession and hence adjourned it for today. The Departmental Representative fortunately is present before us now but express.‑s his inability to conduct the appeal for the reason that the record of the Department has not been made available to him, the 'brief' for the Departmental Representative has not been supplied and there are no instructions from the Commissioners to seek adjournment. The Departmental Representative voiced the grievance that the Assessing Officers do not co‑operate with him in the prosecution of the appeals,, and, particularly during the months of April, May and June refuse to supply the records on the plea that they were too busy with these Assessments which were likely to get time barred. In the present case, according to the Departmental Representative the intimation was sent to the Department well in time, but neither the Assessing Officer nor the superior others issued any instructions to him with the result that be was handicapped from render ing any assistance to the Tribunal for adjudicating upon the appeal. The De partmental Representative requested us to incorporate this statement in the judgment and to decide the case as we may deem proper. It is no pleasure to us to observe that officers of the Department do not show any enthusiasm in pursuing of the appeals once having filed these. The present case involves considerable revenue but the indifference of the Department is so evident that we see no advantage in any further postpone ment because the Assessee, whose Representative is present before us is anxious for the decision of the appeal filed not only for the Assessment year 1972‑73 but for 1973‑74 and 1974‑75 also. In our decision reported as (1978) 37 Taxation 3 (Trib.), we have held that, if an appellant shows lack of interest in the prosecution of an appeal or renders no assistance whatsoever for its adjudication, it is open to the Court in view of the Supreme Court's decision to dismiss the appeal. The facts and circumstances under which the Departmental Representative is unable to prosecute the present appeal are almost the same as in our reported decision hence it is evident that the Department has no interest in this appeal. It is, therefore, dismissed. MUHAMMAD MAZHAR ALI (MEMBER).‑--I agree with the order proposed to be passed by my learned brother. I would, however, like to add that the burden to dislodge the order appealed against lies on the appellant who feels aggrieved by it. If the appellant, whether it be Revenue Department for the assessee, does not earnestly pursue for press an appeal it leads to an inference that he is not really aggrieved by the order appealed against. However upon, perusal of the impugned order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner in this instant case, I am convinced that the Department does not seem to have any real cause of grievance. At any rate, lack of interest shown by the Revenue authorities in pursuing, this appeal, which involves substantial revenue is highly deplorable and I cannot help expressing my regrets for it. Appeal dismissed.