Abhinandan Investments Ltd., V. DCIT. Cir. 1(1), New Delhi.,

ITA 1221/DEL/2003

• Counselvise Citation: [2009] 114 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7003 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 year(s) 1 month(s) 12 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-04-2009
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 1998-1999
• Appeal Filed On: 17-03-2003
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL

Judgement Text

I.T.A. NO.1221/DEL/03 1/2 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH E NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI A.K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. NO.1221 /DEL/2003 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 1998-99 ABHINANDAN INVESTMENT LTD., ADDL. CIT, 28-NAJAFGARH ROAD, SPECIAL RANGE-1, NEW DELHI9 15. V. NEW DELHI. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY : SHRI SUSHIL KUMAR, SR. DR. ORDER PER A.K. GARODIA, AM: THIS IS AN ASSESSEE'S APPEAL DIRECTED AGAINST THE O RDER OF LD CIT(A) IV, NEW DELHI DATED 7.11.2002 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 1998- 99. THIS APPEAL WAS LAST FIXED FOR HEARING ON 15.4.2009. ON THIS DATE OF HE ARING, THERE WAS A REQUEST FROM LD AR OF THE ASSESSEE FOR ADJOURNMENT. THE HEARING WAS ADJOURNED ON THAT DATE AND THE SAME WAS FIXED FOR 28.4.2009. THE REPRESEN TATIVE OF LD AR OF THE ASSESSEE HAS NOTED THIS DATE OF HEARING AND SIGNED ON THE ADJOURNMENT APPLICATION WHICH IS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IN SPITE OF THIS, NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE ON THIS DATE OF HEARING I.E.28.4.20 09. THERE IS NO APPLICATION FOR ADJOURNMENT. IT APPEARS THAT ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERE STED IN GETTING THE APPEAL PROSECUTED. HON'BLE MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF TUKOJIRAO HOLKAR V. CWT 223 ITR 480 (MP) WHILE DISMISSING THE REFERENCE MADE AT THE INSTANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IN DEFAULT MADE THE FOLLOW ING OBSERVATIONS: . I.T.A. NO.1221/DEL/03 2/2 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 PAPER BOOK SO AS TO ENABLE HEARING OF THE REFERENCE, THE COURT IS NOT B OUND TO ANSWER THE REFERENCE. 2. 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 ISSUE OF NOTICE COULD NOT BY ITSELF MEAN THAT THE APPEAL HAD BEEN ADMITTED. T HIS RULE ONLY CLARIFIES THE POSITION. THERE MIGHT BE VARIOUS REASONS WITH THE A PPELLANT TO REMAIN ABSENT AT THE TIME OF HEARING. ONE OF THE REASONS MIGHT ALSO BE A DESIRE OR ABSENCE OF NEED TO PROSECUTE THE APPEAL OR LIABILITY TO ASSIST THE TRIBUNAL IN A PROPER MANNER OR TO TAKE BENEFIT OF VAGARIES OF LAW. 3. 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 F OR NON APPEARANCE AND IF THE BENCH IS SO SATISFIED, THE MATTER MAY BE RECALLED F OR THE PURPOSE OF ADJUDICATION OF THE APPEAL. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED FOR NON P ROSECUTION. 5. PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON THE DATE OF HEARING I.E. 28.4.2009. (GEORGE MATHAN) ( A.K. GARODIA) JUDICIAL,MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DT. 28.4.2009. COPY FORWARDED TO:- 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT 4. THE CIT (A)-, NEW DELHI. 5. THE DR, ITAT, LOKNAYAK BHAWAN, KHAN MARKET, NEW DELHI. TRUE COPY. BY ORDER (ITAT, NEW DELHI).