Trak Online Net India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi V. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 1316/DEL/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6653 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 year(s) 11 month(s) 4 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-02-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: H
• Next Hearing Date: 15-02-2016
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 25-03-2010
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: H: NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. O.P. KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 1316/DEL/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-07 M/S. TRAK ONLINE NET INDIA PVT. LTD., AB-11, COMMUNITY CENTRE SAFDURJUNG ENCLAVE, NEW DELHI (PAN: AABCT3071E) VS. ITO, WARD-16(3), NEW DELHI (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY NONE RESPONDENT BY SH. SARABJEET SINGH, SR. DR DATE OF HEARING 15.02.2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 29.02.2016 ORDER PER O.P. KANT, A.M.: THIS APPEAL, BY THE ASSESSEE, IS DIRECTED AGAINST T HE ORDER DATED 25.01.2010, PASSED BY THE CIT(A)-XIX, NEW DELHI, FOR A.Y. 2006-07. 2. NONE PUT IN APPEARANCE ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE AT THE HEARING DESPITE ISSUE OF NOTICE FOR HEARING, THROUGH REGISTERED POS T AT THE ADDRESS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE IN COLUMN 10 OF THE MEMO OF APPEAL IN FORM NO. 36. THE ENVELOPE, CONTAINING THE NOTICE OF HEARING HAS RETURNED WITH THE REMARK LEFT. NO APPLICATION FOR ADJOURNMENT OF HEARING HAS BEEN REC EIVED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. THE VAKALATNAMA FILED BY THE LD. COUNSEL MS SHIKHA SHRAMA WAS WITHDRAWN ON EARLIER HEARING DATED 25 TH FRBRUARY, 2015 AND THUS AT PRESENT THERE 2 IS NO AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE, ON WHOM NOTICE COULD BE SERVED AND THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT ENGAGED ANY OTHER C OUNSEL FOR REPRESENTING ITS CASE. IT GIVES AN IMPRESSION THAT ASSESSEE IS NOT I NTERESTED IN PURSUING ITS APPEAL. CONSIDERING THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND KEEPING IN VI EW THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 19(2) OF THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RULES AS WERE CONSIDERED IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. MULTIPLAN INDIA LTD., (38 ITD 320)(DEL), THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IS LIABLE TO BE DISMISSED FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION. 3. THE HON'BLE MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT IN THE CA SE OF ESTATE OF LATE TUKOJIRAO HOLKAR VS. CWT (223 ITR 480) HAS HE LD AS UNDER: '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 BOOKS SO AS TO ENABLE HEARING OF THE R EFERENCE, THE COURT IS NOT BOUND TO ANSWER THE REFERENCE. ' 4. SIMILARLY, HON'BLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF NEW DIWAN OIL MILLS VS. CIT (2008) 296 ITR 495) RET URNED THE REFERENCE UNANSWERED SINCE THE ASSESSEE REMAINED ABSENT AND T HERE WAS NOT ANY ASSISTANCE FROM THE ASSESSEE. 5. THEIR LORDSHIPS OF HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. B. BHATTACHARGEE & ANOTHER (118 ITR 461 AT PAGE 477-47 8) HELD THAT THE APPEAL DOES NOT MEAN, MERE FILING OF THE MEMO OF AP PEAL BUT EFFECTIVELY PURSUING THE SAME. 6. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE VIEW TAKEN IN THE CA SES CITED SUPRA, WE DISMISS THE APPEAL FOR NON-PROSECUTION. BEFORE PART ING, WE ADD THAT IN CASE THE ASSESSEE IS SERIOUS IN PURSUING THE APPEAL FILED, THEN IT WOULD BE 3 AT LIBERTY TO PRAY FOR A RECALL OF THIS ORDER BY MO VING AN APPROPRIATE PETITION AND ALSO BY TAKING APPROPRIATE ACTION TO C ORRECT THE DEFECTS POINTED OUT. THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH CONSIDERING THE PETITION IF SO MOVED, IF SO SATISFIED WITH THE EXPLANATION AND THE ACTION S OF CURING THE DEFECTS MAY RECALL THIS ORDER. THE SAID ORDER WAS PRONOUNCE D IN THE OPEN COURT IN THE PRESENCE OF THE PARTIES. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. THE DECISION IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 29 TH FEBRUARY, 2016. SD/- SD/- (H.S. SIDHU) (O.P. KANT) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 29 TH FEBRUARY, 2016. RK/- COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR ASST. REGISTRAR, ITAT, NEW DELHI 4 SL. NO. PARTICULARS DATE 1. DATE OF DICTATION (HAND WRITTEN ) 25.02.2016 2. DATE ON WHICH THE DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER 26.02.2016 3. DRAFT PLACED BEFORE THE OTHER MEMBER 4. APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR. PS/PS 5. KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT ON 6. FINAL ORDER RECEIVED AFTER PRONOUNCEMENT 7. FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK 8. DATE ON WHICH FILES GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK 9. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR 10. DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER