Zeta Investment Private Ltd., Delhi V. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 1089/DEL/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 134 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3621 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 4 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 05-07-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 18-07-2017
• Assessment Year: 2002-2003
• Appeal Filed On: 01-03-2011
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: A K MONGA
• Section: 2

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: I NEW DELHI BEFORE SMT. DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B.K. HALDAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A NO. 1089/DEL/11 ASSTT. YEAR 2002-03 ZETA INVESTMENT PRIVATE LTD., 282/2,BASANT LOK, SANGAM VIHAR, JHARODA GAON, MAZRA, BURARI, AAACZ1635P VS. ITO WARD-18(4), NEW DELHI. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: NONE RESPONDENT BY: SHRI A.K. MONGA, SR. DR ORDER PER DIVA SINGH, JM: THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST TH E ORDER DATED 11.01.2011 OF CIT-XXI, NEW DELHI PERTAINING TO 2002-03 WHEREIN TH E FOLLOWING GROUNDS HAVE BEEN RAISED :- 1. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN FACT AND IN LAW IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS. 1,50,0 0,000/- MADE BY THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF SHARES PURC HASED ON CREDIT FROM M/S. BASTI SUGAR MILLS CO. LIMITED. 2. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME (APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN FACT AND IN LAW IN CONFIRMING ADDITION OF RS. 1,50,000/- EVE N THOUGH NO CREDIT OF SUCH AMOUNT IS APPEARING IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. 3. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN FACT AND IN LAW IN HOLDING THAT THE TRANSACTION OF PURCH ASE OF SHARES IS A SHAM TRANSACTION. 4. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME (APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN FACT AND IN LAW IN HOLDING THAT THE BALANCE SHEET AS ON 30.6 .2008 AND 30.6.2009 ARE UNRELIABLE AND THE AMOUNTS SHOWN UNDE R THE HEAD CREDITORS ARE NOT EXPLAINED. 2. HOWEVER, AT THE TIME OF HEARING, ON ONE WAS PRES ENT ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. THE APPEAL WAS PASSED OVER IN THE FIRST R OUND. DESPITE THE SAME EVEN IN ITA NO. 1089/DEL/11 ASSTT. YEAR 2002-03 2 THE SECOND ROUND ALSO NEITHER ANYONE WAS PRESENT NO R ANY ADJOURNMENT APPLICATION WAS PLACED BEFORE US. A PERUSAL OF THE RECORD SHOWS THAT NOTICE WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE ON 5 TH MAY, 2011 FIXING THE DATE OF HEARING FOR TODAY I .E. 5.7.2011. THE NOTICE HAS BEEN ADDRESSED TO THE ADDRESS PROVIDED I N COLUMN NO. 10 GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE IN HIS MEMO OF APPEAL. 3. ACCORDINGLY, IN THE AFOREMENTIONED PECULIAR FACT S AND CIRCUMSTANCES, WE HAVE NO ALTERNATIVE BUT TO DISMISS THE PRESENT APPEAL FO R NON PROSECUTION. IN OUR ABOVE VIEW, WE FIND SUPPORT FROM THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS :- 1. IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. B.N. BHATTACHARGEE AND AN OTHER, REPORTED IN 118 ITR 461 (RELEVANT PAGES 477 & 478) WHEREIN THEIR LO RDSHIPS HAVE HELD THAT : THE APPEAL DOES NOT MEAN MERELY FILING OF THE APP EAL BUT EFFECTIVELY PURSUING IT. 2. IN THE CASE OF ESTATE OF LATE LATE TUKOJI RAO HO LKAR VS. CWT; 223 ITR 480 (MP), WHILE DISMISSING THE REFERENCE MADE AT THE IN STANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IN DEFAULT MADE FOLLOWING OBSERVATION IN THEIR ORD ER : IF THE PARTY, AT WHOSE INSTANCE THE REFERENCE IS M ADE, FAILS TO APPEAR AT THE HEARING, OR FAILS IN TAKING STEPS FOR PREPARATI ON OF THE PAPER BOOKS SO AS TO ENABLE HEARING OF THE REFERENCE, THE COURT IS NOT BOUND TO ANSWER THE REFERENCE. 3 .IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. MULTIPLAN (INDIA) PVT. LTD. 38 ITD 320 (DEL) THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL, WH ICH WAS FIXED FOR HEARING. BUT ON THE DATE OF HEARING NOBODY REPRESEN TED THE REVENUE /APPELLANT NOR ANY COMMUNICATION FOR ADJOURNMENT WA S RECEIVED. THERE WAS NO COMMUNICATION OR INFORMATION AS TO WHY THE REVENUE CHOSE TO REMAIN ABSENT ON THAT DATE. THE TRIBUNAL ON THE BAS IS OF INHERENT POWERS, TREATED THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE AS UN-ADMIT TED IN VIEW OF THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 19 OF THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RUL ES, 1963. 4. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THESE DECISIONS (SUPRA), THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS TREATED AS UNADMITTED / DISMISSED FOR N ON PROSECUTION. WE MAY LIKE TO CLARIFY THAT SUBSEQUENTLY IF THE ASSESSEE MOVES AN APPROPRIATE APPLICATION FOR RECALL OF THE ORDER AND EXPLAIN THE REASONS FOR NON APPEAR ANCE AND IF THE BENCH IS SO SATISFIED, THE ORDER MAY BE RECALLED FOR THE PURPOS E OF ADJUDICATION OF THE APPEAL. ITA NO. 1089/DEL/11 ASSTT. YEAR 2002-03 3 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED FOR NON PROSECUTION. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 5.7.2011 IMMEDIATEL Y AFTER CONCLUSION OF THE HEARING. SD/- SD/- [B.K. HALDAR] [DIVA SINGH] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 5.7.2011 VEENA COPY FORWARDED TO: - 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT TRUE COPY BY ORDER, DEPUTY REGISTRAR, ITAT