M/s Devraj Pappu Singh & Others, Bulandshahr V. DCIT, Uttar Pradesh

ITA 1857/DEL/2011

• Counselvise Citation: 185720114 RSA 2011
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 16-11-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 16-11-2011
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 15-04-2011
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ROHIT GARG

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH B: NEW DELHI BEFORE SMT. DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B.C.MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A.NO. 1857/DEL/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2005-06 M/S DEVRAJ PAPPU SINGH & OTHERS VS. DCIT, CIRCLE, 2, SUNDERPURI BULANDSHAHR BULANDSHAHR 203 001 (U.P.) PAN: AAAJD0644B (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY : SH. ROHIT GARG, S R. DR O R D E R PER DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST TH E ORDER DATED 31.1.2011 OF CIT(A), MEERUT PERTAINING TO A.Y. 200 5-06 ON VARIOUS GROUNDS. 2. NO ONE WAS PRESENT ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE AT THE TIME OF HEARING. THE APPEAL WAS PASSED OVER IN THE FIRST RO UND AS NO ONE WAS PRESENT ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER EVEN IN THE SECOND ROUND NEITHER ANYONE WAS PRESENT ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSE E NOR ANY REQUEST FOR ADJOURNMENT WAS RECEIVED. A PERUSAL OF THE RECORD SHOWS THAT NOTICE WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE ON 13 TH JULY, 2011 FIXING THE DATE OF HEARING ON 16 TH NOVEMBER, 2011. IT IS SEEN THAT THE NOTICE WAS SEN T TO THE ADDRESS INDICATED BY THE ASSESSEE IN COLUMN NO. 10 OF THE MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL IN FORM NO. 36. DESPITE THE SAME, NEITH ER ANYONE WAS PRESENT ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE NOR ANY REQUEST F OR ADJOURNMENT WAS RECEIVED. FROM THE ABOVE IT IS EVIDENT THAT THE ASS ESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED IN THE PROSECUTION OF THESE APPEALS. HENCE, THE APP EAL FILED BY THE ITA 1857/DEL/2011 PA GE 2 OF 3 A.Y. 2005-06 DEVRAJ PAPPU SINGH & OTHERS ASSESSEE IS LIABLE TO BE UNADMITTED/DISMISSED, FOR NON-PROSECUTION. IN OUR ABOVE VIEW, WE FIND SUPPORT FROM THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS: 1. CIT VS. B.N. BHATTACHARGEE AND ANOTHER, REPORTED IN 118 ITR 461 [RELEVANT PAGES 477 & 478] WHEREIN THEIR LORDSHIPS HAVE HELD THAT: THE APPEAL DOES NOT MEAN MERELY FILING OF THE APPE AL BUT EFFECTIVELY PURSUING IT. 2. ESTATE OF LATE TUKOJIRAO HOLKAR VS. CWT; 223 ITR 48 0 (M.P.) WHILE DISMISSING THE REFERENCE MADE AT THE INSTANCE OF TH E ASSESSEE IN DEFAULT MADE FOLLOWING OBSERVATION IN THEIR 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. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX VS. MULTIPLAN INDIA (P) LTD.; 38 ITD 320 (DEL). 3. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THESE DECISIONS (SUPRA), THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS TREATED AS UNADMITTED/DISMISSED FOR NON PROSECUTION. WE MAY LIKE TO CLARIFY THAT SUBSEQUENTLY IF THE AS SESSEE MOVES AN APPROPRIATE APPLICATION FOR RECALL OF THE ORDER AND EXPLAIN THE REASONS FOR 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 16 TH NOVEMBER, 2011 IMMEDIATELY AFTER CONCLUSION OF THE HEARING. SD/- SD/- (B.C.MEENA) (DIVA SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 16 TH NOVEMBER, 2011 MANGA ITA 1857/DEL/2011 PA GE 3 OF 3 A.Y. 2005-06 DEVRAJ PAPPU SINGH & OTHERS COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO:- 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR BY ORDER DEPUTY REGISTRAR, ITAT.