Sh. Rattan Singh, Haryana V. Pr. CIT, Karnal

ITA 1373/DEL/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 126 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3693 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 10 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 08-02-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: H
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 11-03-2016
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAVIKANT GUPTA

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH : A , NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. AMIT SHUKLA , JUDICIAL M EMBER AND SH. O.P. KANT , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 1373 /DE L/ 2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011 - 12 SH. RATTAN SINGH, V. NALIKHURD, P.O. - NALIPUR, DISTT. - KARNAL, HARYAYA. VS. PR. CIT, SECTOR - 12, KARNAL PAN : BKQPS5379R ( APPELLANT ) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY NONE PRESENT RESPONDENT BY SH. RAVI KANT GUPTA, SR.DR DATE OF HEARING 01.02.2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 08.02.2018 ORDER PER O.P. KANT , A. M. : THIS APPEAL, BY THE ASSESSEE, IS DIRECTED AGAINST ORDER OF LD. PR. CIT, KARNAL, DATED 29.12.2015 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011 - 12. 2. IN THIS CASE, NOTICE WAS SENT TO THE ASSESSEE BY REGD. AD POST FOR HEARING ON 01.02.2018 AT THE ADDRESS MENTIONED IN FORM NO. 36 VIDE COLUMN NO. 10, BUT NEITHER THE ASSESSEE NOR HIS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE ATTENDED THE HEARING, NOR ANY APPLICATION F OR ADJOURNMENT HAS BEEN FILED. IT IS, THUS, INFERRED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED IN PROSECUTION OF HIS APPEAL, THEREFORE, IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, NO USEFUL PURPOSE WOULD BE SERVED TO SEND THE NOTICE AGAIN AND AGAIN ON THE SAME ADDRESS. 3. CONSIDERING THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND KEEPING IN VIEW THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 19(2) OF THE INCOME - TAX (APPELLATE TRIBUNAL) RULES, 1963 AS WERE CONSIDERED IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. MULTIPLAN INDIA LTD., (38 ITD 320)(DEL), THE ASSESSEE S APPEAL IS LIABLE TO BE DISMISSED FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION. 4 . THE HON'BLE MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF ESTATE OF LATE TUKOJIRAO HOLKAR VS. CWT (223 ITR 480) HAS HELD AS UNDER: 2 '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 PAPER BOOKS SO AS TO ENABLE HEARING OF THE REFERENCE, THE COURT IS NOT BOUND TO ANSWER THE REFERENCE. ' 5 . SIMILARLY, HON'BLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF NEW DIWAN OIL MILLS VS. CIT (2008) 2 96 ITR 495) RETURNED THE REFERENCE UNANSWERED SINCE THE ASSESSEE REMAINED ABSENT AND THERE WAS NOT ANY ASSISTANCE FROM THE ASSESSEE. 6 . 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 APPEAL BUT EFFECTIVELY PURSUING THE SAME. 7 . RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE VIEW TAKEN IN THE CASES CITED SUPRA, WE DISMISS THE ABOVE APPEAL FOR NON - PROSECUTION. BEFORE PARTING, WE ADD THAT IN CASE THE ASSESSEE IS SERIOUS IN PURSUING THE APPEAL FILED, THEN HE WOULD BE AT LIBERTY TO PRAY FOR A RECALL OF THIS ORDER BY MOVING AN APPROPRIATE APPLICATION. THE DECISION IS PRONOUN CED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 8 T H FEB . , 201 8 . S D / - S D / - ( AMIT SHUKLA ) ( O.P. KANT ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 8 T H FEBRUARY , 201 8 . RK / - (D.T.D) COPY FORWARDED TO: 1 . APPELLANT 2 . RESPONDENT 3 . CIT 4 . CIT(A) 5 . DR ASST. REGISTRAR, ITAT, NEW DELHI