Cane Development Council, Mansoorpur, Uttar Pradesh V. Addl. CIT, Muzaffarnagar

ITA 1783/DEL/2012

• Counselvise Citation: 178320114 RSA 2012
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-06-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 17-04-2012
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S K UPADHYAYE

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH B, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI S.V. MEHROTRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI A.D. JAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 1782/DEL/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 CANE DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL, VS. ADDL. CIT, ROHANA KALAN VILL & P.O. ROHANA KALAN, RANGE-2, DISTT. MUZAFFARNAGAR, MUZAFFARNAGAR. UTTAR PRADESH. AAALC0277F (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) & ITA NO. 1783/DEL/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 CANE DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL, VS. ADDL. CIT, MANSOORPUR VILL & P.O. MANSOORPUR, RANGE-2, DISTT. MUZAFFARNAGAR, MUZAFFARNAGAR. UTTAR PRADESH. AAALC0277F (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY : SH. S.K. UPADHYAYE, SR. DR ORDER PER A.D. JAIN, J.M. THESE APPEALS ARE FILED BY THE ASSESSEES. THEY AR E DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDERS OF LD. CIT(A) DATED 08.11.2010 & 27.10.2 010, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08. ITA NOS. 1782 & 1783/D/2012 2 2. THE ASSESSEES HAVE SENT THESE APPEALS THROUGH S PEED POST. THE NOTICE WAS ALSO SENT AT THE GIVEN ADDRESS FOR TODAY . AS PER THE DEFECT NOTICE THE APPEALS ARE TIME BARRED BY 421 AND 456 D AYS, RESPECTIVELY AND THE FURTHER DEFECT IN THE NOTICES IS AS UNDER: - CHALLAN FILED AS INCOME TAX INSTEAD OF OTHERS IN DETAILS OF PAYMENT WHICH IS NOT TREATED AS APPEAL F EES. 3. HOWEVER, ON THE DATE OF HEARING, NONE APPEARED O N BEHALF OF THE ASSESEES NOR ANY ADJOURNMENT APPLICATION WAS FILED ON BEHALF OF ASSESSEES. IT APPEARS THAT THE ASSESSEES ARE NOT I NTERESTED IN PROSECUTING THE APPEAL. HENCE, THE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESS EES ARE LIABLE TO BE DISMISSED, FOR NON-PROSECUTION, FINDING SUPPORT FRO M THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS: 1. IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. B.N. BHATTACHARGEE AND ANOT HER, REPORTED IN 118 ITR 461 [RELEVANT PAGES 477 & 478] WHEREIN THEIR LO RDSHIPS 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 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 HEARING OF THE REFE RENCE, 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 REVENUE B EFORE THE TRIBUNAL, WHICH WAS FIXED FOR HEARING. BUT ON THE DATE OF HE ARING NOBODY REPRESENTED THE REVENUE/APPELLANT NOR ANY COMMUNICA TION FOR ADJOURNMENT WAS RECEIVED. THERE WAS NO COMMUNICATI ON OR INFORMATION AS TO WHY THE REVENUE CHOSE TO REMAIN ABSENT ON THA T 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 RULES, 1963. ITA NOS. 1782 & 1783/D/2012 3 4. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE S ARE DISMISSED FOR NON-PROSECUTION. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 19.06.2012 SD/- SD/- (S.V. MEHROTRA) (A.D. J AIN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDI CIAL MEMBER DATED: 19.06.12 *KAVITA COPY FORWARDED TO: - 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT TRUE COPY BY ORDER, DEPUTY REGISTRAR