Biotronik Medical Devices India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi V. ACIT, Delhi

ITA 1323/DEL/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7355 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 7 month(s) 22 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-10-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 27-10-2014
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 07-03-2013
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SATPAL SINGH

Judgement Text

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH A : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI S. V. MEHROTRA , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI A. T. VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 1323 /DEL/ 2013 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008 - 0 9 ) BIOTRONIK MEDICAL DEVICES, INDIA PVT. LTD. UNIT NO. 805 - 807, 8 TH FLOOR, COMMERCIAL COMPLEX DLF TOWER - B, JASOLA, NEW DELHI - 110044 VS. ACIT CIRCLE - 3(1), DELHI - 110035 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY : SH. SATPAL SINGH, DR O R D E R PER A. T. VARKEY , JUDICIAL MEMBER THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD CIT(A) - V I , NEW DELHI DATED 0 4 .1 2 .201 2 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 200 8 - 0 9 . 2. TODAY, I.E. ON 27 . 10 .2014 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 THE APPEAL; HENCE, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS LIABLE TO BE UN - ADMITTED AND DISMISSED FOR NON - PROSECUTION. IN O UR ABOVE VIEW, WE FIND SUPPORT FROM THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS: - (I). IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. B.N. BHATTACHARGEE & ANOTHER 118 ITR 461 (RELEVANT PAGES 477 & 478) WHEREIN THEIR LORDSHIPS HAVE HELD THAT THE APPEAL DOES NOT MEAN MERELY FILING OF APPEAL BUT EFFEC TIVELY PURSUING IT. (II). IN THE CASE OF ESTATE OF LATE TUKOJI RAO HOLKER VS. CWT 223 IR 480 (MP) WHILE DISMISSING THE REFERENCE MADE AT THE INSTANCE OF ASSESSEE IN DEFAULT MADE FOLLOWING OBSERVATIONS IN THEIR ORDER: IF THE PARTY AT WHOSE INSTANCE THE R EFERENCE IS MADE, FAILS TO APPEAR AT THE HEARING, OR FAILS IN TAKING STEPS FOR PREPARATION OF THE PAPER PAGE NO. 2 BOOKS SO AS TO ENABLE HEARING OF THE REFERENCE, THIS COURT IS NOT BOUND TO ANSWER THE REFERENCE. (III). IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. MULTIPLAN INDIA PVT. LTD . 38 ITD 320 (DEL). THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL WHICH WAS FIXED FOR HEARING BUT ON THE DATE OF HEARING NOBODY REPRESENTED THE REVENUE / APPLICANT, NOR ANY COMMUNICATION FOR ADJOURNMENT WAS RECEIVED. THERE WAS NO COMMUNICATION OR INF ORMATION AS TO WHY REVENUE CHOOSE TO REMAIN ABSENT ON THAT DATE. THE TRIBUNAL ON THE BASIS OF INHERENT POWER TREATED THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE AS UN - ADMITTED IN VIEW OF RULE 19 OF THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RULES, 1963. 3. THEREFORE, KEEPING IN VIEW THE ABOVE, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED FOR NON - PROSECUTION. THE ASSESSEE, IF SO ADVISED, SHALL BE FREE TO MOVE THIS TRIBUNAL PRAYING FOR RECALLING OF THIS ORDER AND EXPLAINING THE REASONS FOR NON - COMPLIANCE ETC. AND IF THE BENCH IS SO SATISFI ED ABOUT THE REASONS ETC, THEN THIS ORDER SHALL BE RECALLED. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE ASSESSEE S APPEAL IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 27 . 10 .2014. SD/ - SD/ - ( S. V. MEHROTRA ) (A. T. VARKEY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 27 / 10 / 2014 A K VERMA COPY FORWARDED TO 1. APPLICANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR:ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, NEW DELHI