Sudha Dewan, V. ITO Ward 22(4),

ITA 1718/DEL/2008

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 134 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4078 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-05-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Next Hearing Date: 18-05-2011
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 05-05-2008
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: KISHORE B

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH G NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI K.G. BANSAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO.1718 /DEL/2008 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2004-05 MRS. SUDHA DEWAN, PROP., VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, M/S RASHI EXPORTS, D-972, WARD-22(4), NEW FRIENDS COLONY, NEW DELHI NEW DELHI PAN NO.ADRPD 6213A (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY : SHRI KISHORE B., SR. DR. ORDER PER K.G. BANSAL, AM: IN THIS CASE, THE TRIBUNAL HAD PASSED THE ORDER ON 31.1 2.2008 IN WHICH THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE WAS DISMISSED IN LIMINE FO R NON PROSECUTION. THIS ORDER WAS RECALLED ON 05.03.2010 FO R DECIDING THE APPEAL ON MERITS AND THE APPEAL WAS FIXED FOR HEARING ON 19.05.2010. THE BENCH DID NOT FUNCTION ON THAT DATE AND, THEREF ORE, THE APPEAL WAS FIXED FOR HEARING ON 10.09.2010. NONE ATTENDED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE, THEREFORE, THE APPEAL WAS AGAIN FIXED FOR 11.0 1.2011. ON THE REQUEST OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, THE APPEAL WAS ADJOURNED TO 18.05.2011. NONE ATTENDED ON BEHALF O F THE ASSESSEE ON THIS DATE ALSO. NO APPLICATION WAS FILED FOR THE ADJO URNMENT OF THE HEARING. THUS, IT APPEARS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERE STED IN PROSECUTING THE APPEAL. IN VIEW THEREOF, IT IS LIABL E TO BE DISMISSED IN LIMINE IN VIEW OF THE DECISION OF ITAT DELHI BENCH D IN THE CASE OF CIT V. MULTIPLAN INDIA (P) LTD., IN WHICH IT IS OBSERVED THAT THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 19 STATE THAT MERE ISSUE OF NOTICE COULD NOT BY I TSELF MEAN THAT THE APPEAL HAD BEEN ADMITTED. THIS RULE ONLY CLARIFI ES THE POSITION. 2 THERE MIGHT BE VARIOUS REASONS WITH THE APPELLANT TO R EMAIN ABSENT AT THE TIME OF HEARING. ONE OF THE REASONS MIGHT ALSO BE A DESIRE OR ABSENCE OF NEED TO PROSECUTE THE APPEAL OR INABILITY TO ASSIST THE TRIBUNAL IN A PROPER MANNER OR TO TAKE BENEFIT OF V AGARIES OF LAW. 2. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE PRECEDENT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED IN LIMINE. 3. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED. THIS ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 18.05. 2011 SOON AFTER THE COMPLETION OF THE HEARING. SD/- SD/- ( RAJPAL YADAV ) ( K.G. BANSAL ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DT. 18.05.2011. NS COPY FORWARDED TO:- 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT 4. THE CIT (A)-, NEW DELHI. 5. THE DR, ITAT, LOKNAYAK BHAWAN, KHAN MARKET, NEW DELHI. TRUE COPY. BY ORDER (ITAT, NEW DELHI).