Mr. S.K. Gupta, New Delhi V. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 1612/DEL/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6898 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 6 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-09-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Next Hearing Date: 19-09-2016
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 19-03-2013
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 2

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH : G NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. H.S. SIDHU , JUDICIAL M EMBER AND SH. O.P. KANT , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO S . 1612 & 1613 /DEL/ 2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR S : 2005 - 06 & 2006 - 07 SH. S.K. GUPTA, 215, GULMOHAR ENCLAVE, NEW DELHI VS. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 9, NEW DELHI PAN : AAVPG4818R (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY NONE RESPONDENT BY SH. N.K. BANSAL, SR.DR DATE OF HEARING 19.09.2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 20.09.2016 ORDER PER O.P. KANT , A. M. : THESE TWO APPEALS , BY THE ASSESSEE, ARE DIRECTED AGAINST A COMMON ORDER OF LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) - XXXII , NEW DELHI, DATED 21.11.2012 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR S 2005 - 06 AND 2006 - 07 . 2. EARLIER ON 22.12.2015, W HEN THE CASE CAME UP FOR HEARING, ON THE W RITTEN REQUEST OF ASSESSEE S COUNSEL THE CASE WAS ADJOURNED TO 09.05.2016 , WHICH WAS INFORMED TO BOTH THE PARTIES. ON 09.05.2016, DUE TO NON - FUNCTIONING OF BENCH, THE CASE WAS ADJOURNED TO 19.09.2016 AND NOTICE REGARDING NEXT DATE OF HEARING WAS ALSO ISSUE D TO THE ASSESSEE THROUGH RPAD 2 ITA NO S . 1612 &1613/DEL/2013 AY S : 2005 - 06 & 2006 - 07 AT THE ADDRESS FURNISHED BY HIM IN COLUMN 10 OF THE MEMO OF APPEAL IN FORM NO. 36 . DESPITE THIS, O N 19.09.2016, WHEN THE CASE WAS CALLED UPON, NONE RESPONDED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE, NOR HAS ANY APPLICATION FOR ADJOURNMENT BEEN RECEIVED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. IT GIVES AN IMPRESSION THAT ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED IN PURSUING THE APPEAL S . 3. CONSIDERING THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND KEEPING IN VIEW THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 19(2) OF THE INCOME - TAX (APPELLATE TRIBUNAL) RULES, 1 963 AS WERE CONSIDERED IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. MULTIPLAN INDIA LTD., (38 ITD 320)(DEL), THE ASSESSEE S APPEAL S ARE LIABLE TO BE DISMISSED FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION. 3. 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: '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. ' 4. SIMILARLY, HON'BLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF NEW DIWAN OIL MILLS VS. CIT (2008) 296 ITR 495) RETURNED THE REFERENCE UNANSWERED SINCE THE ASSESSEE REMAINED ABSENT AND THERE WAS NOT ANY ASSISTANCE FROM THE ASSESSEE. 5. THEIR LORDSHIPS OF HON'BLE SUPR EME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. B. BHATTACHARGEE & ANOTHER (118 ITR 461 AT PAGE 477 - 478) HELD THAT THE APPEAL DOES NOT MEAN, MERE FILING OF THE MEMO OF APPEAL BUT EFFECTIVELY PURSUING THE SAME. 3 ITA NO S . 1612 &1613/DEL/2013 AY S : 2005 - 06 & 2006 - 07 6. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE VIEW TAKEN IN THE CASES CITED SUPRA, WE DISMISS THE ABOVE APPEAL S FOR NON - PROSECUTION. BEFORE PARTING, WE ADD THAT IN CASE THE ASSESSEE IS SERIOUS IN PURSUING THE APPEAL S FILED, THEN HE WOULD BE AT LIBERTY TO PRAY FOR A RECALL OF THIS ORDER BY MOVING AN APPROPRIATE APPLICATION. 7. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEAL S OF THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED FOR NON - PROSECUTION. THE DECISION IS PRONOUN CED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 2 0 T H SEPT., 2016 . S D / - S D / - ( H.S. SIDHU ) ( O.P. KANT ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 2 0 T H SEPTEMBER , 2016 . RK / - COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR ASST. REGISTRAR, ITAT, NEW DELHI