Ashok Kumar Malhotra, New Delhi V. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 1095/DEL/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 86860 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 02-03-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 23-02-2015
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 25-02-2013
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: Y KAKKAR

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH `A NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI N.K. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI CHANDRA MOHAN GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A.NO.1095/DEL/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10 SHRI ASHOK KUMAR MALHOTRA, VS IN COME TAX OFFICER, 90/1, MALVIYA NAGAR, WARD-37(3), NEW DELHI. NEW DELHI. (PAN: ACDPM5312L) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: NONE RESPONDENT BY : MS Y. KAKKAR, DR DATE OF HEARING: 23.2.2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 02.03.2015 O R D E R PER CHANDRA MOHAN GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER THE ABOVE APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGA INST THE ORDER OF CIT(A)-XXVIII, NEW DELHI DATED 12.12.2012 PERTAININ G TO AY 2009-10. 2. THIS APPEAL WAS INITIALLY FIXED FOR HEARING ON 2 .1.2014 BUT WAS ADJOURNED TO 2.6.2014 AT THE REQUEST OF THE ASSESSEE AND LATE R FIXED FOR HEARING ON 23.2.2015 AND BOTH PARTIES WERE INFORMED. TODAY ON 23.2.2015, NO ONE WAS PRESENT ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE NOR ANY REQUEST F OR ADJOURNMENT WAS PLACED BEFORE THE BENCH. 3. IT APPEARS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED I N GETTING THE APPEAL PROSECUTED. HONBLE MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF TU KOJIRAO HOLKAR VS CWT 223 ITR 480 (MP) , WHILE DISMISSING THE REFERENCE MADE AT THE INSTANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IN DEFAULT, MADE THE F OLLOWING OBSERVATIONS:- IF THE PARTY AT WHOSE INSTANCE, THE REFERENCE IS MADE, FAILS TO APPEAR AT THE HEARING OR FAILS IN TAKING S TEPS FOR PREPARATION OF THE PAPER BOOKS SO AS TO ENABLE HEAR ING OF THE REFERENCE, THE COURT IS NOT BOUND TO ANSWER THE REFERENCE. 4. ITAT DELHI BENCH D IN THE CASE OF CIT VS MULTIPLAN INDIA (P) LTD. 38 ITD 320 OBSERVED THAT THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 19 STATE THAT MERE ISSUE OF NOTICE COULD NOT BY ITSELF MEAN THAT THE APPEAL HAD BEEN ADMITTED. THIS RULE ONLY CLARIFIES THE POSITION. THERE MIGHT BE VARIOUS REASONS WITH THE APPELLANT TO REMAIN ABSENT AT THE TIME OF HEARING. ONE OF THE R EASONS MIGHT ALSO BE A DESIRE OR ABSENCE OF NEED TO PROSECUTE THE APPEAL OR LIABI LITY TO ASSIST THE TRIBUNAL IN A PROPER MANNER OR TO TAKE BENEFIT OF VAGARIES OF LAW . 5. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE PRECEDENTS, THE APPEA L FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS TREATED AS UN-ADMITTED AND DISMISSED IN LIMINE. WE MAY LIKE TO CLARIFY THAT SUBSEQUENTLY, IF THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINS THE REASONS FOR NON-APPEARANCE AND IF THE BENCH IS SO SATISFIED, THE MATTER MAY BE RECALLED F OR THE PURPOSE OF ADJUDICATION OF THE APPEAL. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED FOR NON- PROSECUTION. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 02/03/2015. SD/- SD/- (N.K. SAINI) (CHANDRAMOHAN G ARG) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DT. 2ND MARCH 2015 GS COPY FORWARDED TO:- 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. C.I.T.(A) 4. C.I.T. 5. DR BY ORDER ASSTT.REGISTRAR