Sh. Sharad Kumar Garg, Uttrakhand V. ITO, Rudrapur

ITA 1086/DEL/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 134 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4252 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-04-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Next Hearing Date: 28-04-2011
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 01-03-2011
• 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 SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.1086/DEL./2011 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2005-06) SHARAD KUMAR GARG, VS. ITO, RUDERPUR, INDUSTRIAL AREA, RUDERPUR (UTTRAKHAND). (PAN/GIR NO.AFLPG7382N) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : NONE REVENUE BY : SHRI KISHORE B., SR.DR ORDER PER A.D. JAIN: JM THIS IS ASSESSEES APPEAL FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-0 6 TAKING THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: 1. THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER, ERROR IN MAKING THE ASSESSME NT ORDER WHICH IS BAD BOTH IN LAW AND FACTS. 2. THAT THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER ERRED IN MAKING A N ADDITION OF RS. 5,00,000/WHICH WAS THE LOAN TAKEN FROM SHRI S ATINDER KUMAR TIWARI. 3. THAT THE SUM OF RS. 5,00,000/- WAS DEPOSITED WITH MI S AMAR JYOTI FOOD PRODUCTS AND ON FILING OF THE CONFIRMATIO N OF THE LENDER THE SAME WAS ACCEPTED. 4. THAT ITO ERRED IN DOUBTING THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION PARTICULARLY WHEN IT WAS MADE THROUGH THE BANKING CH ANNEL AS WITHOUT ASKING FOR THE STATEMENT FROM THE BANKING AUT HORITIES DOUBTING OF TRANSACTION IS UNJUSTIFIED. 5. THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, ALTER AND AMEND ANY OTHER GROUND OF APPEAL. I.T.A. NO.1086/DEL./2011 (A.Y. : 2005-06) 2 2. AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF THE APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE D ID NOT COME ALTHOUGH THE DATE OF HEARING OF THE APPEAL ON 28.04.2011 WAS NOTED BY THE ASSESSEE AT THE TIME OF FILI NG OF THE APPEAL, I.E., ON 01.03.2011, AS AVAILABLE FROM T HE RECORD. IT IS THUS INFERRED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED IN PURSUING THE APPEAL. THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS, THER EFORE, DISMISSED AS UNADMITTED FOLLOWING THE RATIO OF DECISIONS RENDERED IN THE FOLLOWING CASES: 1. IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. B.N. BHATTACHARGEE AND ANOT HER, REPORTED IN 118 ITR 461 [RELEVANT PAGES 477 & 478], WHEREIN T HEIR LORDSHIPS HAVE HELD THAT:- THE APPEAL DOES NOT MEAN MERELY FILING OF THE APPEA L BUT EFFECTIVELY PURSUING IT. 2. IN THE CASE OF ESTATE OF LATE TUKOJIRAO HOLKAR VS. 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 REF ERENCE IS MADE, FAILS TO APPEAR AT THE HEARING, OR FAILS IN TAKING STE PS FOR PREPARATION OF THE REFERENCE, THE COURT IS NOT BOU ND 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 ABOVE PRECEDENTS, THE A PPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED IN LIMINE FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION. HOWEVER, IT IS CLARIFIED THAT IF ASSESSEE LATER ON EXPLAINS THE RE ASONS FOR NON- APPEARANCE AND THE BENCH IS SO SATISFIED, THE ORDER PASSE D EX-PARTE MAY BE RECALLED FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION OF THE APPEAL . I.T.A. NO.1086/DEL./2011 (A.Y. : 2005-06) 3 4. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISM ISSED FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON THE CONCLUSION OF THE HEARING ON 28.04.2011. SD/- SD/- (SHAMIM YAHYA) (A.D. JAIN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED, APRIL 28, 2011 SKB COPY FORWARDED TO: 1.APPELLANT 2.RESPONDENT 3.CIT 4.CIT(A)-II, DEHRADUN. 5.CIT(ITAT), NEW DELHI. AR/ITAT