M/s. Machino Plastic Ltd, New Delhi V. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 1296/DEL/2009

• Counselvise Citation: [2009] 115 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2358 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-12-2009
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Next Hearing Date: 22-12-2009
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 06-04-2009
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: G S SAHOTA

Judgement Text

I.T.A. NO. 1296/DEL/2009 1/3 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI, BENCH F BEFORE SHRI K.G. BANSAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 1296/DEL/2009 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2005-06 ) M/S. MACHINO PLASTIC LTD., A-10, NEW FRIENDS COLONY, NEW DELHI. VS. ADD. CIT, RANGE 6, NEW DELHI. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN : AAACM 6984 G APPELLANT BY: NONE RESPONDENT BY: SHRI G.S. SAHOTA, SR. DR ORDER PER GEORGE MATHAN, JM: 1. THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN DIRECTED AG AINST THE ORDER IN APPEAL NO. 61/2007-08 DATED 05.01.2009 OF CIT(A) IX, NEW DELHI FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 . 2. THIS CASE WAS LISTED FOR HEARING BEFORE THE T RIBUNAL ON 15.06.2009 AND THE NOTICE OF HEARING WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE AT THE ADDRESS GIVEN IN FORM NO.36 OF THE MEMO OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE HEARING WAS ADJOU RNED TO 22.12.2009 ON THE WRITTEN REQUEST OF THE ASSESSEES COUNSEL. THIS DATE OF HEARING WAS NOTED BY BOTH TH E PARTIES PRESENT IN THE COURT ON 15.06.2009 . BUT TODAY, I.E. 2/3 ON 22.12.2009 , WHEN THE CASE WAS CALLED ON BOARD, NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE NOR ANY REQUEST FOR ADJOURNMENT HAS BEEN FILED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. IT SEEMS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED IN PROSECUTING HIS APPEAL; HENCE, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS LIABLE T O BE DISMISSED, FOR 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 LORDSHIPS HAVE HELD THAT:- THE APPEAL DOES NOT MEAN MERELY FILING OF THE APPEAL BUT EFFECTIVELY PURSUING IT. 2. IN THE CASE OF ESTATE OF LATE TUKOJIRAO HOLKAR V S. CWT; 223 ITR 480 (M.P.) WHILE DISMISSING THE REFERENCE M ADE AT THE INSTANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IN DEFAULT MADE FOL LOWING OBSERVATION IN THEIR ORDER:- IF THE PARTY, AT WHOSE INSTANCE THE REFERENCE IS MADE, 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 THE CASE OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX VS. MU LTIPLAN INDIA (P.) LTD.; 38 ITD 320 (DEL.), THE APPEAL FILE D BY THE REVENUE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL, WHICH WAS FIXED FOR HEARING. BUT ON THE DATE OF HEARING NOBODY REPRESE NTED 3/3 THE REVENUE/APPELLANT NOR ANY COMMUNICATION FOR ADJOURNMENT WAS RECEIVED. THERE WAS NO COMMUNICATION OR INFORMATION AS TO WHY THE REVENUE CHOSE TO REMAIN ABSENT ON THAT DATE. THE TRIBUNAL ON THE BASIS OF INHERENT POWERS, TREATED THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE AS UNADMITTED IN VIEW OF THE PROVISION OF R ULE 19 OF THE APPELLATE RULES, 1963. 3. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE , IS DISMISSED FOR NON-PROSECUTION. 4. THIS DECISION WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT O N 22 ND DECEMBER, 2009. (K.G. BANSAL ) (GEORGE MATHAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 22 ND DECEMBER, 2009 NITASHA* COPY FORWARDED TO 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT TRUE COPY: BY ORDER 4. CIT(A) 5. DR DY. REGISTRAR, ITAT, NEW DELHI