Manoj Kumar, Gurgaon V. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 1628/DEL/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 126 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3086 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 11 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-03-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 29-03-2016
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S R SENAPATI

Judgement Text

PAGE | 1 INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH C : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA , JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 1628/DEL/2016 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011 - 12 ) MANOJ KUMAR, PROP BALAJI ENGINEERS & CONSULTANTS, 547/1, BHIM PALANCE, NEAR UNION BANK OF INDIA, NEW RAILWAY ROAD, GURGAON PAN:AGQPK1786P VS. ACIT, CIRCLE - 62(1), NEW DELHI (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : NONE REVENUE BY: SHRI SR SENAPATI, SR. DR DATE OF HEARING 26/03/2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 2 6 / 0 3 / 2018 O R D E R PER PRASHANT MAHARISHI , A. M. 1. THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD CIT(A) - 20 , NEW DELHI DATED 03.03.2016 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011 - 12 . 2. TODAY, I.E. ON 26.03.2018 WHEN THIS CASE WAS CALLED ON BOARD, NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE NOR ANY REQUEST FOR ADJOURNMENT HAS BEEN FILED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. IT SEEMS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED IN P ROSECUTING THE APPEAL; HENCE, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS LIABLE TO BE UN - ADMITTED AND DISMISSED FOR NON - PROSECUTION. IN OUR ABOVE VIEW, WE FIND SUPPORT FROM THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS: - (I). IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. B.N. BHATTACHARGEE & ANOTHER 118 ITR 461 (RELEVANT PAGES 477 & 478) WHEREIN THEIR LORDSHIPS HAVE HELD THAT THE APPEAL DOES NOT MEAN MERELY FILING OF APPEAL BUT EFFECTIVELY PURSUING IT. (II). IN THE CASE OF ESTATE OF LATE TUKOJI RAO HOLKER VS. CWT 223 ITR 480 (MP) WHILE DISMISSING THE REFER ENCE MADE AT THE INSTANCE OF ASSESSEE IN DEFAULT MADE FOLLOWING OBSERVATIONS IN THEIR ORDER: PAGE | 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, THIS COURT IS NOT BOUND TO ANSWER THE REFERENCE. (III). IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. MULTIPLAN INDIA PVT. LTD. 38 ITD 320 (DEL). THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL WHICH WAS FIXED FOR HEARING BUT ON THE DATE OF HEARIN G NOBODY REPRESENTED THE REVENUE / APPLICANT, NOR ANY COMMUNICATION FOR ADJOURNMENT WAS RECEIVED. THERE WAS NO COMMUNICATION OR INFORMATION AS TO WHY REVENUE CHOOSE TO REMAIN ABSENT ON THAT DATE. THE TRIBUNAL ON THE BASIS OF INHERENT POWER TREATED THE APPE AL FILED BY THE REVENUE AS UN - ADMITTED IN VIEW OF RULE 19 OF THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RULES, 1963. 3. THEREFORE, KEEPING IN VIEW THE ABOVE, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED FOR NON - PROSECUTION. THE ASSESSEE, IF SO ADVISED, SHALL BE FREE TO MOVE THIS TRIBUNAL PRAYING FOR RECALLING OF THIS ORDER AND EXPLAINING THE REASONS FOR NON - COMPLIANCE ETC. AND IF THE BENCH IS SO SATISFIED ABOUT THE REASONS ETC, THEN THIS ORDER SHALL BE RECALLED. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 2 6 / 0 3 / 2018 . - S D / - - S D / - ( SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA ) (PRASHANT MAHARISHI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 2 6 / 03 / 2018 A K KEOT COPY FORWARDED TO 1. APPLICANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR:ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, NEW DELHI