Mayank Gupta, Ghaziabad V. Addl. CIT, Ghaziabad

ITA 1708/DEL/2009

• Counselvise Citation: [2009] 114 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9707 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 10-09-2009
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: I
• Assessment Year: 2003-2004
• Appeal Filed On: 27-04-2009
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ANUSHA KHURANA

Judgement Text

1 1708 DEL 2009 AKG AM IN THE INCOMETAX APPELATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH I: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI A.D. JAIN AND SHRI A.K. GARODIA ITA NO. 1708/DEL./2009 ASSESS MENT YEAR 2003-04. SHRI MAYANK GUPTA, C/O. RAVI KUMAR & CO., C.AS., 58, G.T. ROAD, GHAZIABAD (U.P.). PERMANENT A/C.NO.AEWPG 4414Q VS. THE ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, GHAZIABAD. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY : SMT.ANUSHA KHURANA, SR. D.R. O R D E R PER A.K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THIS APPEAL AGAINST THE ORD ER PASSED BY THE CIT (APPEALS)-GHAZIABAD, IN APPEAL NO. 34/2007-08/GZB DATED 28.09.2007 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04. 2. THIS CASE WAS LISTED FOR HEARING BEFORE THE TRIB UNAL ON 10.09.2009 AND FOR THIS DATE NOTICE OF HEARING WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE ON 19.08.2009 3. TODAY I.E. ON 10.09.2009, WHEN THE CASE WAS CALLED ON BOARD, NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE NOR ANY REQUEST FOR ADJOURNMENT HAS BEEN FILED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL DESPITE THE SERVICE OF NOTICE UPON THE 2 ASSESSEE. IT SEEMS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERE STED IN PROSECUTING HIS APPEAL; HENCE, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS LIABLE TO BE DISMISSED, FOR NON-PROSECUTION. IN OUR ABOVE VIEW, WE FIND SU PPORT FROM THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS: 1. IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. B.N. BHATTACHARGEE AND AN OTHER, REPORTED IN 118 ITR 461 [RELEVANT PAGES 477 & 478] WHEREIN THEI R 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 V S. CWT; 223 ITR 480 (M.P.) WHILE DISMISSING THE REFERENCE MADE AT THE I NSTANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IN DEFAULT MADE FOLLOWING OBSERVATION IN T HEIR 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. MU LTIPLAN 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 NOR ANY CO MMUNICATION FOR ADJOURNMENT WAS RECEIVED. THERE WAS NO COMMUNI CATION OR INFORMATION AS TO WHY THE REVENUE CHOSE TO REMAIN A BSENT ON THAT 3 DATE. THE TRIBUNAL ON THE BASIS OF INHERENT POWERS , TREATED THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE AS UN-ADMITTED IN VIEW OF THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 19 OF THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RUL ES, 1963. 5. 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. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, IS DISMISSED, FOR NON-PROSECUTION. 7. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT TODAY I.E. ON 10.0 9.2009 AFTER CONCLUSION OF THE HEARING. [A.D. JAIN] [[A.K. GARODIA] JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 10.09.2009 *RELLI* COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. SHRI MAYANK GUPTA, C/O. RAVI KUMAR & CO., C.AS., 58, G.T.ROAD, GHAZIABAD. 2. THE ADDL. C.I.T., RANGE-I, GHAZIABAD. 3. THE CIT(APPEALS), GHAZIABAD. 4. CIT GHAZIABAD. 5. DR, ITAT TRUE COPY BY ORDE R, DEPUTY REGISTRAR, INCOME-TA X APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCHES, NEW DELHI. 10.09.2009. 10.09.2009. 4