M/s Shubham Share & Stock Brokers Ltd., New Delhi V. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 1546/DEL/2011

• Counselvise Citation: 154620114 RSA 2011
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 01-08-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: I
• Next Hearing Date: 01-08-2011
• Assessment Year: 2003-2004
• Appeal Filed On: 30-03-2011
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: A K MONGA

Judgement Text

ITA NOS. 1545,1546/DEL/2011 A.YS.2002-03&2004-05 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH I: NEW DELHI BEFORE SMT. DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B.K. HALDAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A.NOS. 1545,1546/DEL/2011 ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2002-03, 2004-05 SHUBHAM SHARE & STOCK BROKERS LTD. VS. ITO, KD-57, WARD 8 (3) PITAMPURA NEW DELHI. NEW DELHI AABCS5859H (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY : A.K. MONGA, SR. DR O R D E R PER DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER BOTH THESE APPEALS HAVE BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE CONSOLIDATED ORDER DATED 5.1.2010 OF CIT(A)-XI, NEW DELHI PERTAINING TO 2002-03 AND 2003-04 ASSTT. YEARS IN WHICH VARIOUS GROUN DS HAVE BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IN BOTH THE APPEALS. 2. NO ONE WAS PRESENT ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE AT THE TI ME OF HEARING. THE APPEALS WERE PASSED OVER TWICE AS NO WAS PR ESENT ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER EVEN IN THE THIRD ROUND NEITHER ANYONE WAS PRESENT ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE NOR ANY REQU EST FOR ADJOURNMENT WAS RECEIVED. A PERUSAL OF THE RECORD SHOW S THAT NOTICE WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE ON 12 TH JULY, 2011 FIXING THE DATE OF HEARING ON 1 ST AUGUST, 2011. IT IS SEEN THAT THE NOTICE WAS SENT TO TH E ADDRESS INDICATED BY THE ASSESSEE IN COLUMN NO. 10 OF THE MEMOR ANDUM OF APPEAL IN FORM NO. 36. DESPITE THE SAME, NEITHER ANYO NE WAS PRESENT ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE NOR ANY REQUEST FOR ADJOURNMEN T WAS RECEIVED. FROM THE ABOVE IT IS EVIDENT THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT 2 INTERESTED IN THE PROSECUTION OF THESE APPEALS. HENCE, THE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE LIABLE TO BE UNADMITTED/DISMISSED, FOR NON- PROSECUTION. IN OUR ABOVE VIEW, WE FIND SUPPORT FROM THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS: 1. CIT VS. B.N. BHATTACHARGEE AND ANOTHER, REPORTED IN 118 ITR 461 [RELEVANT PAGES 477 & 478] WHEREIN THEIR LORDSHIPS HAV E HELD THAT: THE APPEAL DOES NOT MEAN MERELY FILING OF THE APPEA L BUT EFFECTIVELY PURSUING IT. 2. ESTATE OF LATE TUKOJIRAO HOLKAR VS. CWT; 223 ITR 4 80 (M.P.) WHILE DISMISSING THE REFERENCE MADE AT THE INSTANCE OF THE ASSE SSEE IN DEFAULT MADE FOLLOWING OBSERVATION IN THEIR ORDER: IF THE PARTY, AT WHOSE INSTANCE THE REFERENCE IS MADE , FAILS TO APPEAR AT THE HEARING, OR FAILS IN TAKING STE PS FOR PREPARATION OF THE PAPER BOOKS SO AS TO ENABLE HEARING OF THE REFERENCE, THE COURT IS NOT BOUND TO ANSWER THE REFERENCE. 3. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX VS. MULTIPLAN INDIA (P) LTD.; 38 ITD 320 (DEL), 3. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THESE DECISIONS (SUPRA), THE A PPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE TREATED AS UNADMITTED/DISMISSED FOR NON PROSECUTION. WE MAY LIKE TO CLARIFY THAT SUBSEQUENTL Y IF THE ASSESSEE MOVES AN APPROPRIATE APPLICATION FOR RECALL OF THE O RDER AND EXPLAIN THE REASONS FOR NON APPEARANCE AND IF THE BENCH IS SO SATISFI ED, THE ORDER MAY BE RECALLED FOR THE PURPOSE OF ADJUDICATION OF T HE APPEALS. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AR E DISMISSED FOR NON PROSECUTION. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 1 ST AUGUST, 2011 IMMEDIATELY AFTER CONCLUSION OF THE HEARING. SD/- SD/- (B.K. HA (B.K. HA (B.K. HA (B.K. HALDAR) LDAR) LDAR) LDAR) (DIVA SINGH) (DIVA SINGH) (DIVA SINGH) (DIVA SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 1 ST AUGUST, 2011 3 VEENA COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO:- 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR BY ORDER DEPUTY REGISTRAR, ITAT.