Mr. S.K. Bhatnagar, Ghaziabad V. ITO, Ghaziabad

ITA 1054/DEL/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2010] 136 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4092 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-05-2010
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Assessment Year: 2003-2004
• Appeal Filed On: 10-03-2010
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: KISHORE B

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH `G : NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI A.D. JAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A.K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.1054/DEL./2010 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2003-04) MR. S.K. BHATNAGAR, VS. ITO, WARD 2(3), C/O M/S SARASWATI LEGAL PROFESSIONALS GHAZIABAD. PVT. LTD., 60/5, VRINDAVAN GARDEN, ARADHANA, ESI ROAD, SAHIBABAD GHAZIABAD (PAN/GIR NO.AAPPB9997A) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : NONE REVENUE BY : SHRI KISHORE B., SR.DR ORDER PER A.D. JAIN: JM THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE FOR AY 2003-0 4 ARISES OUT OF THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A), GHAZIABAD, IN WHICH VARIOUS GROUNDS HAVE BEEN RAISE D: 2. AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF THE APPEAL, NONE APPEA RED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE IN SPITE OF THE FACT THAT THE DATE OF HEARING WAS NOTE D AT THE TIME OF FILING THE APPEAL ITSELF ON 10.3.2010 . IT IS, THEREFORE, INFERRED THAT THE ASS ESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED IN PURSUING THE APPEAL. THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE, THEREFORE , DISMISSED AS UNADMITTED FOLLOWING THE RATIO OF DECISIONS RENDERED IN THE FOLLOWING CASES: 1. IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. B.N. BHATTACHARGEE AND AN OTHER, REPORTED IN 118 ITR 461 [RELEVANT PAGES 477 & 478], WHEREIN THEIR LORDSHIPS HAVE HELD THAT:- THE APPEAL DOES NOT MEAN MERELY FILING OF THE APPE AL BUT EFFECTIVELY PURSUING IT. 2. IN THE CASE OF ESTATE OF LATE TUKOJIRAO HOLKAR V S. CWT; 223 ITR 480 (M.P.) WHILE DISMISSING THE REFERENCE MADE AT THE INSTANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IN DEFAULT MADE FOLLOWING OBSERVATION IN THEIR ORDER:- IF THE PARTY, AT WHOSE INSTANCE THE R EFERENCE IS MADE, FAILS TO APPEAR AT THE HEARING, OR FAILS IN TAKING STEPS FOR PREPARATION OF THE REFERENCE, THE COURT IS NOT BOUND TO ANSWER THE REFERENCE. 3. SIMILAR VIEW HAS BEEN TAKEN BY ITAT, DELHI BENCH IN THE CASE OF MULTIPLAN INDIA (P).) LTD. REPORTED IN 38 ITD 320 (DEL.). 3. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE PRECEDENT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED IN LIMINE FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION. HOWEVER, IT IS CLARIFIED THAT IF ASSESSEE LATER ON EXPLAINS THE REASONS FOR NON-APPEARANCE AND THE BEN CH IS SO SATISFIED, THE ORDER PASSED EX-PARTE MAY BE RECALLED FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION OF THE APPEAL. 3. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION. 4. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON THE CONCLUSION OF THE HEARING ON 12.05.2010. SD/- SD/- (A.K. GARODIA) (A.D. JAIN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED, MAY 12, 2010. SKB COPY FORWARDED TO: 1.APPELLANT 2.RESPONDENT 3.CIT 4.CIT(A), GHAZIABAD. 5.CIT(ITAT), NEW DELHI. AR/ITAT