G.E India Business Services Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi V. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 1621/DEL/2011

• Counselvise Citation: 162120114 RSA 2011
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 11 month(s) 18 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-03-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 23-03-2015
• Assessment Year: 2002-2003
• Appeal Filed On: 04-04-2011
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: T VASANTHAN

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH : C : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R.S. SYAL, AM AND SHRI I.C. SUDHIR, J M ITA NO.1621/DEL/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2002-03 G.E. INDIA BUSINESS SERVICES PVT. LTD., AIFACS BUILDING, 1, RAFI MARG, NEW DELHI. PAN : AAACI6748J VS. ACIT, CIRCLE 12(1), NEW DELHI. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY: SHRI T. VASANTHAN, SR.DR ORDER PER SHRI R.S. SYAL, AM: THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT(A) ON 26.11.2010 IN RELATION TO A SSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03. 2. WHEN THE MATTER WAS CALLED UP FOR HEARING TOD AY, NO ONE HAS APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE HA S NOT FILED ANY ADJOURNMENT APPLICATION ALSO. EARLIER, THE MATTER W AS ADJOURNED MANY A TIMES AT THE REQUEST OF THE ASSESSEE AND FOR OTHER REASONS. ITA NO.1621/DEL/2011 2 THE NOTICE OF HEARING WAS SENT TO THE ASSESSEE WHIC H HAS NOT BEEN RETURNED BY THE POSTAL AUTHORITIES UNSERVED. IN THE SE CIRCUMSTANCES, IT APPEARS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED IN P ROSECUTING ITS APPEAL. THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS, THEREF ORE, LIABLE TO BE DISMISSED, FOR NON-PROSECUTION. OUR ABOVE VIEW FIN DS SUPPORT FROM THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS:- 1. CIT VS. B.N. BHATTACHARGEE & ANR., 118 ITR 461, WH EREIN THEIR LORDSHIPS HAVE HELD: THE APPEAL DOES NOT MEAN MERELY FILING OF THE APPE AL BUT EFFECTIVELY PURSUING IT. 2. ESTATE OF LATE TUKOJIRAO HOLKAR VS. CWT, 223 ITR 480 (M.P.), WHEREIN, WHILE DISMISSING THE REFERENCE MADE AT THE INSTANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IN DEFAULT, THEIR LORDSHIPS MADE TH E FOLLOWING OBSERVATION:- 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 BOUN D TO ANSWER THE REFERENCE. 3. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX VS. MULTIPLAN INDIA (P. ) LTD, 38 ITD 320 (DEL.),WHEREIN THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVE NUE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL, WAS FIXED FOR HEARING. BUT ON THE DA TE OF HEARING NOBODY REPRESENTED THE REVENUE/APPELLANT NO R ANY COMMUNICATION FOR ADJOURNMENT WAS RECEIVED. THERE WAS NO COMMUNICATION OR INFORMATION AS TO WHY THE REVENUE CHOSE TO REMAIN ABSENT ON THAT DATE. THE TRIBUNAL ON THE BA SIS OF INHERENT POWERS, TREATED THE APPEAL FILED BY THE RE VENUE AS ITA NO.1621/DEL/2011 3 UNADMITTED IN VIEW OF THE PROVISION OF RULE 19 OF T HE APPELLATE RULES, 1963. 3. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASS ESSEE IS DISMISSED FOR NON-PROSECUTION. THE DECISION WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 2 3 RD MARCH, 2015. SD/- SD/- (I.C. SUDHIR) (R.S. S YAL) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 23 RD MARCH, 2015. DK COPY FORWARDED TO 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR DY. REGISTRAR, ITAT, NEW DELHI