M/s. Lexus India Ltd., Dehradun V. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 1706/DEL/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 73949 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 9 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 09-01-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 09-01-2014
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 25-03-2013
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SHAMEER SHARMA

Judgement Text

ITA NO. 1706/DEL/2013 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH D, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 1706 /DEL/201 3 A.Y. : 2007-08 M/S LEXUS INDIA LTD., D-3 & 4, INDUSTRIAL AREA, SALAQUI DEHRADUN-248197 (PAN: AAACL6145N) VS. ITO, WARD 4(3), C.R. BLDG., NEW DELHI (APPELLANT) (APPELLANT) (APPELLANT) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) (RESPONDENT) (RESPONDENT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : NONE DEPARTMENT BY : SH. SHAMEER SHARMA, SR. D.R. ORDER ORDER ORDER ORDER PER SHAMIM PER SHAMIM PER SHAMIM PER SHAMIM YAHYA: AM YAHYA: AM YAHYA: AM YAHYA: AM THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THIS APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDE R DATED 08.1.2013 PASSED BY THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS- VIII), NEW DELHI. 2. THIS CASE WAS LISTED FOR HEARING BEFORE THE TRIB UNAL ON 09-1-2014 AND FOR THIS ASSESSEE WAS INFORMED. TODA Y I.E. ON 09-1-2014 WHEN THE CASE WAS CALLED ON BOARD, NONE A PPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE NOR ANY REQUEST FOR ADJOURNM ENT HAS BEEN FILED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL DESPITE THE SERVICE OF NOTICE U PON THE ASSESSEE. IT SEEMS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED IN PROSEC UTING ITS APPEAL; HENCE, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS LIABLE T O BE DISMISSED, FOR NON-PROSECUTION. IN OUR ABOVE VIEW, WE FIND SUPPOR T FROM THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS: ITA NO. 1706/DEL/2013 2 1. IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. B.N. BHATTACHARGEE AND ANOTH ER, REPORTED IN 118 ITR 461 [RELEVANT PAGES 477 & 478] WHEREIN T HEIR LORDSHIPS HAVE HELD THAT: THE APPEAL DOES NOT MEAN MERELY FILING OF THE APPE AL BUT EFFECTIVELY PURSUING IT. 2. IN THE CASE OF ESTATE OF LATE TUKOJIRAO HOLKAR VS. CWT; 223 ITR 480 (M.P.) WHILE DISMISSING THE REFERENCE MADE AT T HE INSTANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IN DEFAULT MADE FOLLOWING OBSERVATION IN THEIR ORDER: 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 PAPER BOOKS SO AS TO ENABLE HEAR ING OF THE REFERENCE, THE COURT IS NOT BOUND TO ANSWER THE REFERENCE. 3. IN THE CASE OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX VS. MULTI PLAN INDIA (P) LTD.; 38 ITD 320 (DEL), THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REV ENUE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL, WHICH WAS FIXED FOR HEARING. BUT ON THE DATE 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 UN- ADMITTED IN VIEW OF THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 19 OF TH E APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RULES, 1963. 3. THE ASSESSEE, IF SO DESIRED, SHALL BE FREE TO MO VE THIS TRIBUNAL PRAYING FOR RECALLING THIS ORDER AND EXPLAINING REA SONS FOR NON- COMPLIANCE ETC. THEN THIS ORDER MAY BE RECALLED. ITA NO. 1706/DEL/2013 3 4. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE , IS DISMISSED, FOR NON-PROSECUTION. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 09/1/2014, UPON CONCLUSION OF HEARING. [ [[ [BHAVNESH SAINI] BHAVNESH SAINI] BHAVNESH SAINI] BHAVNESH SAINI] [SHAMIM YAHYA] [SHAMIM YAHYA] [SHAMIM YAHYA] [SHAMIM YAHYA] JUDICIAL MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATE 09/1/2014 SRBHATNAGAR SRBHATNAGAR SRBHATNAGAR SRBHATNAGAR COPY FORWARDED TO: COPY FORWARDED TO: COPY FORWARDED TO: COPY FORWARDED TO: - -- - 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT TRUE COPY BY ORDER, ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, DELHI BENCHES