M/s. U-Like Promoters (P) Ltd, New Delhi V. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 1569/DEL/2009

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 97511 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 year(s) 5 month(s) 20 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 07-10-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: H
• Next Hearing Date: 05-10-2015
• Assessment Year: 1998-1999
• Appeal Filed On: 17-04-2009
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH `H NEW DELHI SHRI CHANDRAMOHAN GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND BEFORE SHRI L.P. SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A.NO.1569/DEL/2009 TO 1572/DEL/2009 I.T.A. 1377/DEL/2012 TO ITA NO. 1379/DEL/2012 ASSESSMENT YEARS 1998-99 TO 2004-05 U-LIKE PROMOTERS (P) LTD., VS ACIT, CEN TRAL CIRCLE-2, 1/1, SHANTI NIKETAN, E-2, ARA CENTRE, NEW DELHI-110021 JHANDEWALAN EXTN, (PAN: AAACU1090K) NEW DELHI-110055 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDEN T) APPELLANT B Y: NONE RESPONDENT BY : SMT. SUNI TA KEJRIWAL, CIT DR DATE OF HEARING: 05.10.2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: O R D E R PER BENCH THESE APPEALS BY THE ASSESSEE HAVE BEEN PREFERRED A GAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A), NEW DELHI DATED 5.2.2009 IN APPEAL NO. 92/0 7-08 FOR AY 1998-99. 2. THESE APPEALS WERE INITIALLY FIXED FOR HEARING O N 29.3.2012 AND SINCE THEN ADJOURNMENTS HAVE BEEN SOUGHT BY THE COUNSEL FOR TH E ASSESSEE. THEREAFTER, THE APPEAL WAS FIXED FOR HEARING ON 5.10.2015 AND B OTH PARTIES WERE INFORMED. TODAY ON 5.10.2015, NO ONE WAS PRESENT ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE NOR ANY REQUEST FOR ADJOURNMENT WAS PLACED BEFORE THE BENCH . SMT. SUNITA KEJRIWAL, CIT DR APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE AT THE TIM E OF HEARING. ITA NO.1569 TO 1572/D/2009 ITA 1377 TO 1379/D/2012 2 3. IT APPEARS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED I N GETTING THE APPEALS PROSECUTED. HONBLE MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF TU KOJIRAO HOLKAR VS CWT 223 ITR 480 (MP) , WHILE DISMISSING THE REFERENCE MADE AT THE INSTANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IN DEFAULT, MADE THE F OLLOWING OBSERVATIONS:- IF THE PARTY AT WHOSE INSTANCE, THE REFERENCE IS MADE, FAILS TO APPEAR AT THE HEARING OR FAILS IN TAKING S TEPS FOR PREPARATION OF THE PAPER BOOKS SO AS TO ENABLE HEAR ING OF THE REFERENCE, THE COURT IS NOT BOUND TO ANSWER THE REFERENCE. 4. ITAT DELHI BENCH D IN THE CASE OF CIT VS MULTIPLAN INDIA (P) LTD. 38 ITD 320 OBSERVED THAT THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 19 STATE THAT MERE ISSUE OF NOTICE COULD NOT BY ITSELF MEAN THAT THE APPEAL HAD BEEN ADMITTED. THIS RULE ONLY CLARIFIES THE POSITION. THERE MIGHT BE VARIOUS REASONS WITH THE APPELLANT TO REMAIN ABSENT AT THE TIME OF HEARING. ONE OF THE R EASONS MIGHT ALSO BE A DESIRE OR ABSENCE OF NEED TO PROSECUTE THE APPEAL OR LIABI LITY TO ASSIST THE TRIBUNAL IN A PROPER MANNER OR TO TAKE BENEFIT OF VAGARIES OF LAW . 5. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE PRECEDENTS, THE APPEA LS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE TREATED AS UN-ADMITTED AND DISMISSED IN LIMINE. WE MAY LIKE TO CLARIFY THAT SUBSEQUENTLY, IF THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINS THE REASONS FOR NON-APPEARANCE AND IF THE ITA NO.1569 TO 1572/D/2009 ITA 1377 TO 1379/D/2012 3 BENCH IS SO SATISFIED, THE MATTER MAY BE RECALLED F OR THE PURPOSE OF ADJUDICATION OF THE APPEAL. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED FOR NON- PROSECUTION. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 7.10.2015. SD/- SD/- (L.P. SAHU) (CHANDRAMOHAN GARG) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DT. 7TH OCTOBER 2015 GS COPY FORWARDED TO:- 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. C.I.T.(A) 4. C.I.T. 5. DR BY ORDER ASSTT.REGISTRAR