Sh Rakesh Chand Sah, Nainital V. ITO, Nainital

ITA 1055/DEL/2009

• Counselvise Citation: [2009] 115 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1009 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 16-11-2009
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 16-11-2009
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 20-03-2009
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PRATIMA KAUSHIK

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH : C NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI C.L. SETHI, J UDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI K.D. RANJAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO.1055/DEL./2009 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2005-06) SHRI RAKESH CHAND SAH, VS. ITO, NAINITAL. HOTEL HIMTREK, MALL ROAD, MALLITAL, NAINITAL-263 001. (PAN/GIR NO.ADKPS0590A) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : NONE REVENUE BY : SMT. PRATIMA KAUSHIK, SR.DR ORDER PER K.D. RANJAN, AM THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 200 5-06 ARISES OUT OF ORDER OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)II, DEHRAD UN. 2. THIS APPEAL WAS FIRST FIXED FOR HEARING ON 27. 5.2009, BUT WAS ADJOURNED TO 25.06.2009, 12.08.2009 AND AGAIN ON 21.9.2009. AGA IN ON 9.10.2009,NOTICE FIXING THE CASE FOR 16.11.2009 WAS ISSUED. THIS NOTICE HAS NO T BEEN RECEIVED UNSERVED. ON THIS DATE NEITHER ANY BODY ATTENDED NOR WAS ANY APPLICAT ION FOR ADJOURNMENT RECEIVED. FROM TLHE CONDUCT OF THE ASSESSEE, IT APPEARS THAT THE A SSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED IN GETTING THE APPEAL PROSECUTED. HON'BLE MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COU RT IN THE CASE OF TUKOJIRAO HOLKAR VS. CWT 223 ITR 480 (MP) WHILE DISMISSING THE REFER ENCE MADE AT THE INSTANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IN DEFAULT MADE THE FOLLOWING OBSERVATIONS : IF THE PARTY AT WHOSE INSTANCE, THE REFERENCE IS M ADE, FAILS TO APPEAR AT THE HEARING OR FAILS IN TAKING STEPS FOR PREPARATION OF THE PAP ER BOOK SO AS TO ENABLE HEARING OF THE REFERENCE, THE COURT IS NOT BOUND TO ANSWER THE REFERENCE. 3. ITAT DELHI BENCH D IN THE CASE OF CIT V. MULTI PLAN INDIA (P) LTD. OBSERVED THAT THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 19 STATE THAT MERE ISSU E OF NOTICE COULD NOT BY ITSELF MEAN THAT THE APPEAL HAD BEEN ADMITTED. THIS RULE ONLY CLARIF IES THE POSITION. THERE MIGHT BE VARIOUS REASONS WITH THE APPELLANT TO REMAIN ABSENT AT THE TIME OF HEARING. ONE OF THE REASONS MIGHT ALSO BE A DESIRE OR ABSENCE OF NEED TO PROSEC UTE THE APPEAL OR LIABILITY TO ASSIST THE TRIBUNAL IN A PROPER MANNER OR TO TAKE BENEFIT OF V AGARIES OF LAW. 4. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE PRECEDENTS THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS TREATED AS UN-ADMITTED AND DISMISSED IN LIMINE. WE MAY LIKE T O CLARIFY THAT SUBSEQUENTLY IF THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINS THE REASONS FOR NON-APPEARANCE AN D IF THE BENCH IS SO SATISFIED, THE MATTER MAY BE RECALLED FOR THE PURPOSE OF ADJUDICAT ION OF THE APPEAL. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED FOR NON-P ROSECUTION. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 16 .11.2009. SD/- SD/- (C.L. SETHI) (K.D. RANJAN) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED, NOV. 16 ,2009. SKB COPY FORWARDED TO: 1.APPELLANT 2.RESPONDENT 3.CIT 4.CIT(A)-XVI, NEW DELHI. 5.CIT(ITAT), NEW DELHI. AR/ITAT