Rani Devi Jain Prop., Rohtak V. ITO, Rohtak

ITA 1359/DEL/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2010] 136 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3846 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-05-2010
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Next Hearing Date: 18-12-2013
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 29-03-2010
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ANUSHA KHURANA

Judgement Text

I.T.A. NO.1359/DEL/2010 1/3 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI, BENCH F BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A K GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 1359/DEL/2010 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07) RANI DEVI JIAN PROP. VS. ITO, WARD 2, M/S. JAIN AGRO, ROHTAK JHAJJAR ROAD, ROHTAK, HARYANA-124001 (APPELLANTS) (RESPONDENTS) APPELLANT BY: NONE RESPONDENT BY: MS. ANUSHA KHURANA,, SR. DR ORDER PER A. K. GARODIA, AM: 1. THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN DIRECTED AG AINST THE ORDER DATED 21.01.2010 OF CIT(A) ROHTAK FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. 2. THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE WAS FILED ON 29.0 3.2010. AT THE TIME OF RECEIVING THE APPEAL, AN ACKNOWLEDGEMENT CU M NOTICE WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE IN WHICH DATE OF HEARING WAS ALSO INTIMATED BEING 31 ST MAY 2010. IN SPITE OF THIS, NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE DATE OF HEARING. NO CHANGE OF ADDRESS HAS BEEN INTIMATED. NO 2/3 REQUEST FOR ADJOURNMENT HAS BEEN MADE. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, IT SEEMS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT IN TERESTED IN PROSECUTING HER APPEAL; HENCE, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS LIABLE TO BE DISMISSED, FOR NON-PROSECU TION. 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 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 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 THE REVENUE/APPELLANT NOR ANY COMMUNICATION FOR ADJOURNMENT WAS RECEIVED. THERE WAS NO 3/3 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. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASS ESSEE, IS DISMISSED FOR NON-PROSECUTION. 5. THIS DECISION WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT O N 31 ST MAY 2010. SD./- SD./- (RAJPAL YADAV) (A K GARODIA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED:31 ST MAY, 2010 SP. COPY FORWARDED TO 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT TRUE COPY: BY ORDER 4. CIT(A) 5. DR DY. REGISTRAR, ITAT, NEW DELHI