Gemini Merchandise Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi V. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 1811/DEL/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 134 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3485 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 16 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-07-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: I
• Next Hearing Date: 29-07-2011
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 13-04-2011
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R S NEGI

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES: I NEW DELHI BEFORE SMT. DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B.K. HALDAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO: 1811/DEL/2011 A.Y. : 2006-2007 GEMINI MERCHANDISE P.LTD. VS. ITO, CO.WARD 12(1) BU-13, SFS FLATS, PITAMPURA NEW DELHI NEW DELHI 34 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY : SHRI R.S.NEGI, SR.D.R. O R D E R PER DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER THIS IS THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 28.1.2011 OF CIT(A)-XV, NEW DELHI PERTAINING TO A .Y. 2006-07. 2. HOWEVER, AT THE TIME OF HEARING NO ONE WAS PRESE NT ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE NOR ANY ADJOURNMENT APPLICATION WAS PLACED BEFORE THE BENCH. IT IS SEEN THAT NOTICE HAS BEEN ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE ON 13 TH JUNE, 2011 AT THE ADDRESS INDICATED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITS MEMO OF APPEAL. IN VIEW OF THE PECULIAR FACTS AND CIRCUMST ANCES WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED IN PROSECU TING THE APPEAL, HENCE, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS LIABLE T O BE UNADMITTED/DISMISSED, FOR NON-PROSECUTION. IN OUR ABOVE VIEW, WE FIND SUPPORT FROM THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS: 2 1. IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. B.N. BHATTACHARGEE AND ANOTH ER, 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 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 HEAR ING OF THE REFERENCE, THE COURT IS NOT BOUND TO ANSWER THE REFERENCE. 3. IN THE CASE OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX VS. MULTIPLAN INDIA (P) LTD.; 38 ITD 320 (DEL), THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL, WHICH WAS FIXED FOR HE ARING. BUT ON THE DATE OF HEARING NOBODY REPRESENTED THE REVENUE/APPELLANT NOR ANY COMMUNICATION FOR ADJOURN MENT WAS RECEIVED. THERE WAS NO COMMUNICATION OR INFORM ATION AS TO WHY THE REVENUE CHOSE TO REMAIN ABSENT ON THA T DATE. THE TRIBUNAL ON THE BASIS OF INHERENT POWERS, TREAT ED THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE AS UN-ADMITTED IN VIEW OF THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 19 OF THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RUL ES, 1963. 3. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THESE DECISIONS (SUPRA), THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESEE IS TREATED AS UNADMITTED/DISMISSED FOR NON PROSECUTION. WE MAY LIKE TO CLARIFY THAT SUBSEQUENTLY IF THE ASSESS EE MOVES AN APPROPRIATE APPLICATION FOR RECALL OF THE ORDER AND EXPLAIN THE REASONS FOR 3 NON APPEARANCE AND IF THE BENCH IS SO SATISFIED, TH E ORDER MAY BE RECALLED FOR THE PURPOSE OF ADJUDICATION OF THE APP EAL. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESS EE IS DISMISSED FOR NON PROSECUTION. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 29 TH JULY, 2011 IMMEDIATELY AFTER CONCLUSION OF THE HEARING. SD/- SD/- (B.K. HALDAR ) (DIVA SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 29 TH JULY, 2011 *MANGA COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT; 2.RESPONDENT; 3.CIT; 4.CI T(A); 5.DR; 6.GUARD FILE BY ORDER DY. REGISTRAR