Appeal details
Counselvise Citation
[2018] 125 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2136 (ITAT-DELHI)
Assessee PAN
Bench
Appeal Number
Duration Of Justice
3 year(s) 4 month(s) 28 day(s)
Appellant
Respondent
Appeal Type
Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date
04-09-2018
Appeal Filed By
Assessee
Order Result
Dismissed
Bench Allotted
I
Assessment Year
2010-2011
Appeal Filed On
06-04-2015
Judgement Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH : I-1 : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R.S. SYAL, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI K.N. CHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.1964/DEL/2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-11 COCA-COLA INDIA INC. INDIA BRANCH OFFICE, ENKAY TOWER, UDYOG VIHAR, PHASE-V, GURGAON. PAN : AAACC2638K VS. DCIT, CIRCLE-GURGAON, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, NEW DELHI. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY: SHRI SANJAY I BARA, CIT, DR DATE OF HEARING : 04.09.2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 04.09.2018 ORDER PER R.S. SYAL, VP: THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE FINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S 143(3) R. W.S. 144C(13) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961, ON 28.01.2015 IN RELATION TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010- 11. ITA NO.1964/DEL/2015 2 2. WHEN THE MATTER WAS CALLED UP FOR HEARING TOD AY, NO ONE HAS APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FIL ED ANY ADJOURNMENT APPLICATION ALSO. THE NOTICE OF HEARING SENT TO THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN RETURNED UNSERVED. THE MATTER WAS ADJOURNED LAST TI ME AT THE REQUEST OF THE ASSESSEE. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, IT APPEARS THAT T HE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED IN PROSECUTING ITS APPEAL. THE APPEAL FI LED BY THE ASSESSEE IS, THEREFORE, LIABLE TO BE DISMISSED, FOR NON-PROSECUT ION. OUR ABOVE VIEW FINDS SUPPORT FROM THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS:- 1. CIT VS. B.N. BHATTACHARGEE & ANR., 118 ITR 461, WHE REIN THEIR LORDSHIPS HAVE HELD: 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 4 80 (M.P.), WHEREIN, WHILE DISMISSING THE REFERENCE MADE AT THE INSTANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IN DEFAULT, THEIR LORDSHIPS MADE THE FOLLO WING OBSERVATION:- 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 REFERENCE, THE COURT IS NOT BOUND TO ANSWER THE REFERENCE. 3. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX VS. MULTIPLAN INDIA (P. ) LTD, 38 ITD 320 (DEL.), WHEREIN THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL, WAS FIXED FOR HEARING. BUT ON THE DATE O F HEARING NOBODY REPRESENTED THE REVENUE/APPELLANT NOR ANY COMMUNICA TION FOR ITA NO.1964/DEL/2015 3 ADJOURNMENT WAS RECEIVED. THERE WAS NO COMMUNICATI ON 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 UNADMITTED IN VIEW O F THE PROVISION OF RULE 19 OF THE INCOME-TAX (APPELLATE TRIBUNAL) R ULES, 1963. 3. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASS ESSEE IS DISMISSED FOR NON- PROSECUTION. THE DECISION WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 0 4 TH SEPTEMBER, 2018. SD/- SD/- (K. NARASIMHA CHARY) (R.S. SYAL) JUDICIAL MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT DATED: 04 TH SEPTEMBER, 2018 DK COPY FORWARDED TO 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR DY. REGISTRAR, ITAT, NEW DELHI.
