M/s Sdhu Forging Ltd., New Delhi V. DCIT, New Delhi

ITA 1192/DEL/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5433 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 11 month(s) 22 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-02-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 06-09-2016
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 01-03-2013
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RENUKA JAIN GUPTA

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.1192/DEL/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007-08 M/S SADHU FORGING LIMITED, 3 RD FLOOR, KC HOUSE, 5/66, WEA, PADAM SINGH ROAD, KAROL BAGH, NEW DELHI. PAN : AAACS0351F VS. DCIT, CIRCLE 7(1), NEW DELHI. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: NONE RESPONDENT BY: SMT. RENUKA JAIN GUPTA, SR.DR ORDER PER SHRI A.D. JAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER: THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 26.12.2012 PASSED BY THE CIT(A)-X, NEW DELHI, FOR A SSESSMENT YEAR 2007- 08. 2. WHEN THE MATTER WAS CALLED UP FOR HEARING ON 10.02.2014, NO ONE HAS APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE HA S NOT FILED ANY ADJOURNMENT APPLICATION ALSO. THE NOTICE OF HEARING SENT TO THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT RETURNED UNSERVED. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, IT A PPEARS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED IN PROSECUTING ITS APPEAL. THE AP PEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS, THEREFORE, LIABLE TO BE DISMISSED, FOR NON-PROSECUT ION. OUR ABOVE VIEW FINDS SUPPORT FROM THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS:- 1. IN CIT VS. B.N. BHATTACHARGEE & ANR., 118 ITR 461, THEIR LORDSHIPS HAVE HELD: ITA NO. 1 192 /DEL/201 3 2 THE APPEAL DOES NOT MEAN MERELY FILING OF THE APPE AL BUT EFFECTIVELY PURSUING IT. 2. IN ESTATE OF LATE TUKOJIRAO HOLKAR VS. CWT, 22 3 ITR 480 (M.P.) WHILE DISMISSING THE REFERENCE MADE AT THE INSTANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IN DEFAULT, THEIR LORDSHIPS MADE THE FOLLOWING OBSE RVATION:- 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 REFERENCE, THE COURT IS NOT BOUND TO ANSWER THE REFERENCE. 3. IN COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX VS. MULTIPLAN IND IA (P.) LTD, 38 ITD 320 (DEL.), THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL, WAS FIXED FOR HEARING. BUT ON THE DATE OF HEARING NOBO DY REPRESENTED THE REVENUE/APPELLANT NOR ANY COMMUNICATION FOR ADJOURN MENT WAS RECEIVED. THERE WAS NO COMMUNICATION OR INFORMATIO N AS TO WHY THE REVENUE CHOSE TO REMAIN ABSENT ON THAT DATE. THE T RIBUNAL ON THE BASIS OF INHERENT POWERS, TREATED THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE AS UNADMITTED IN VIEW OF THE PROVISION OF RULE 19 OF T HE APPELLATE RULES, 1963. 3. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASS ESSEE IS DISMISSED FOR NON- PROSECUTION. THE DECISION WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 1 0 TH FEBRUARY, 2014. SD/- SD/- (SHAMIM YAHYA) (A.D. JAIN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JU DICIAL MEMBER DATED: 10 TH FEBRUARY, 2014. DK COPY FORWARDED TO 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR DY. REGISTRA R, ITAT, NEW DELHI