Agarwal & co., V. CIT,

ITA 1837/DEL/2008

• Counselvise Citation: [2010] 119 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5723 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 8 month(s) 28 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 10-02-2010
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 10-02-2010
• Assessment Year: 2003-2004
• Appeal Filed On: 12-05-2008
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL

Judgement Text

I.T.A. NO.1837 /DEL/08 1/3 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH A NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI R.P. TOLANI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A.K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO.1837 /DEL/2008 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2003-04 AGARWAL & CO. CIT, GURU TEG BHADUR ROAD, HALDWANI. HALDWANI, NAINITAL. V. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN /GIR/NO.AAKFA-8065-D APPELLANT BY : NONE. RESPONDENT BY : SHRI ASHOK PANDEY, CIT-DR. ORDER PER A.K. GARODIA, AM: THIS IS AN ASSESSEE'S APPEAL DIRECTED AGAINST THE O RDER OF LD CIT, HALDWANI DATED 26.3.2008 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04. THIS APPEAL WAS LAST FIXED FOR HEARING ON 17.12.2009. ON THAT DATE, LD DR OF THE REVENUE REQUESTED FOR ADJOURNMENT AND THE MATTER WAS ADJOURNED FOR HEARIN G ON 10.2.2010. DATE OF HEARING WAS DULY NOTED BY LD AR OF THE ASSESSEE BY AFFIXING HIS INITIAL ON THE REQUEST LETTER OF DR FOR ADJOURNMENT. IN SPITE OF T HIS, NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. ON THIS DATE OF HEARING I.E. 10.2.201 0 AND THERE IS NO REQUEST FOR ADJOURNMENT AND UNDER THESE FACTS, IT APPEARS THAT ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED IN GETTING THE APPEAL PROSECUTED. HON'BLE MADHYA PRAD ESH HIGH COURT IN THE CASE . I.T.A. NO.1837/DEL/08 2/3 OF TUKOJIRAO HOLKAR V. CWT 223 ITR 480 (MP) WHILE D ISMISSING THE REFERENCE MADE AT THE INSTANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IN DEFAULT MAD E THE FOLLOWING OBSERVATIONS: 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 BOOK SO AS TO ENABLE HEARING OF THE REFERENCE, THE COURT IS NOT B OUND TO ANSWER THE REFERENCE. 2. ITAT DELHI BENCH D IN THE CASE OF CIT V. MULTI PLAN INDIA (P) LTD. OBSERVED THAT THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 19 STATE THAT MERE ISSUE OF NOTICE COULD NOT BY ITSELF MEAN THAT THE APPEAL HAD BEEN ADMITTED. T HIS RULE ONLY CLARIFIES THE POSITION. THERE MIGHT BE VARIOUS REASONS WITH THE A PPELLANT TO REMAIN ABSENT AT THE TIME OF HEARING. ONE OF THE REASONS MIGHT ALSO BE A DESIRE OR ABSENCE OF NEED TO PROSECUTE THE APPEAL OR LIABILITY TO ASSIST THE TRIBUNAL IN A PROPER MANNER OR TO TAKE BENEFIT OF VAGARIES OF LAW. 3. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE PRECEDENTS, THE APPEA L FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS TREATED AS UN-ADMITTED AND DISMISSED IN LIMINE. WE MAY LIKE TO CLARIFY THAT SUBSEQUENTLY IF THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINS THE REASONS F OR NON APPEARANCE AND IF THE BENCH IS SO SATISFIED, THE MATTER MAY BE RECALLED F OR THE PURPOSE OF ADJUDICATION OF THE APPEAL. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED FOR NON P ROSECUTION. 5. PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON THE DATE OF HEARING I.E. 10.2.2010. SD/- SD/- (R.P. TOLANI) (A.K. GARODIA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DT. 10 .2.2010. HMS . I.T.A. NO.1837/DEL/08 3/3 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).