M/s. National Textiles Corporation Ltd, New Delhi V. DCIT, New Delhi

ITA 1872/DEL/2009

• Counselvise Citation: [2009] 115 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1013 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 16-11-2009
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Next Hearing Date: 16-11-2009
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 05-05-2009
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: H K LAL

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES: F NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI D.R.SINGH, JM AND SHRI DEEPAK R SHAH, AM ITA NO. 1872/DEL/2009 A.Y. 2005-06 M/S NATIONAL TEXTILE CORPN. LTD. VS. DCIT, CIRCLE 1 3(1) CORE 4, SCOPE COMPLEX NEW DELHI 7, LODHI ROAD NEW DELHI 3 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY : SH.H.K.LAL, D.R. O R D E R PER D.R. SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THIS APPEAL AGAINST THE ORD ER OF CIT(A)-XVI, NEW DELHI DATED 16.2.2009 PASSED IN APPEAL NO. 117/ 2007-08 FOR A.Y. 2005-06. 2. THIS CASE WAS LISTED FOR HEARING BEFORE THE TRIB UNAL ON 16.11.2009. NOTICE OF HEARING WAS SENT TO THE ASSESSEE FOR THIS DATE THROUGH REGD. POST ON 22.8.2009 BUT THE POSTAL AUTHORITIES HAVE N OT RETURNED THE NOTICE EITHER SERVED OR UNSERVED. SINCE THE PERIOD OF 30 DAYS HAS ELAPSED FROM THE DATE OF ISSUE OF THE NOTICE TILL THE DATE OF HE ARING I.E. 16.11.2009 HENCE THE NOTICE IS DEEMED TO HAVE BEEN SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE AS PER PROVISIONS OF SUB RULE 5 TO RULE 9 OF ORDER 5 OF CP C. 2 3. TODAY I.E. ON 16.11.2009 WHEN THE CASE WAS CALL ED ON BOARD, NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE NOR ANY REQUEST FOR ADJOURNMENT HAS BEEN FILED BEFORE US DESPITE THE SERVICE OF NOTICE UPON THE ASSESEE. IT SEEMS THAT THE ASSESEE IS NOT INTERESTED IN PROSE CUTING THIS APPEAL., HENCE, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESEE IS LIABLE TO BE TREATED AS UNADMITTED AND DISMISSED FOR NON-PROSECUTION. IN OUR ABOVE VIEW WE FIND SUPPORT FROM THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS. 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. MULTI PLAN INDIA (P) LTD.; 38 ITD 320 (DEL), THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REV ENUE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL, WHICH WAS FIXED FOR HEARING. BUT ON THE DATE OF HEARING NOBODY REPRESENTED THE REVENUE/APPELLANT NOR ANY CO MMUNICATION FOR ADJOURNMENT WAS RECEIVED. THERE WAS NO COMMUNI CATION OR INFORMATION AS TO WHY THE REVENUE CHOSE TO REMAIN A BSENT ON THAT 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 RUL ES, 1963. 3 4. MORE OVER, SINCE ASSESEE IS A GOVERNMENT OF IND IA UNDERTAKING AND BEING A PUBLIC SECTOR UNDERTAKING, IT IS OBLIGA TORY ON THE PART OF THE APPELLANT TO OBTAIN A CLEARANCE FROM THE COMMITTEE ON DISPUTES (COD) FOR PURSUING THE APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL AND SIN CE THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESEE IS NOT ACCOMPANIED BY SUCH CLEARANCE FR OM THE COD AS PER THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE C ASE OF ONGC & ANOTHER VS CCE, 104 CTR SC(31), THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL IS LIABLE TO BE DISMISSED FOR WANT OF COD APPROVAL 5. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THIS DECISION (SUPRA), IT IS HELD THAT SINCE THE ASSESEE IS A PUBLIC SECTOR UNDERTAKING OF THE GOVER NMENT OF INDIA AND AS THE APPEAL IS NOT ACCOMPANIED BY A COD APPROVAL FOR PURSUING THE APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESEE IS LIABLE TO BE DISMISSED WITH THE LIBERTY TO APPROACH THE TRIBUNAL AGAIN FOR REVIVAL OF THE APPEAL AS AND WHEN AND TO THE EXTENT THE COD AP PROVAL IS ACCORDED. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESEE, IS TREATED AS UNADMITTED AND DISMISSED AS OBSERVED HEREINABOVE. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT TODAY I.E. ON 1 6.11.2009 IMMEDIATELY AFTER CONCLUSION OF THE HEARING. (DEEPAK R SHAH) (D.R.SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER *MANGA COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT; 2.RESPONDENT; 3.CIT; 4.CIT (A); 5.DR 6.GUARD FILE BY ORDER DY. REGISTRAR // TR UE COPY //