Whirlpool of India Ltd., Gurgaon V. DCIT, New Delhi

ITA 2006/DEL/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 119 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7111 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 28 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-12-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: I
• Next Hearing Date: 29-10-2013
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 21-04-2011
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH I: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI U.B.S. BEDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B.K. HALDAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A.NO.2006/DEL/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007-08 WHIRLPOOL OF INDIA LTD. VS. DCIT, WHIRLPOOL HOUSE, PLOT NO. 40 LARGE TAXPAYER UNIT SECTOR 44, NEW DELHI. GURGAON 122 002. AAAACW1336L (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY : SHRI MOHNISH VERMA, CIT, DR ORDER ORDER ORDER ORDER PER U.B.S. BEDI, J.M PER U.B.S. BEDI, J.M PER U.B.S. BEDI, J.M PER U.B.S. BEDI, J.M. .. . THIS IS AN APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE ARISES FROM THE ORDER PA SSED BY LD. CIT(A) NEW DELHI 31.01.2011 RELEVANT TO ASSTT. YEAR 2007-08. 2. DESPITE SENDING NOTICE OF HEARING SUFFICIENTLY IN A DVANCE NEITHER ASSESSEE NOR HIS REPRESENTATIVE APPEARED AT THE T IME OF HEARING WHEN CASE WAS CALLED UP FOR HEARING. IT IS, TH EREFORE, INFERRED THAT ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED IN PROSECUTING OF APPEAL. 3. HENCE, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS LIABLE TO BE DISMISSED FOR NON-PROSECUTION, FINDING SUPPORT FROM THE FOLLOWI NG DECISIONS : ITA NO. 2006/DEL-2011 2 1. IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. B.N. BHATTACHARGEE AND ANO THER, REPORTED IN 118 ITR 461 [RELEVANT PAGES 477 & 478] WHEREIN THEIR LORDSHIPS HAVE HELD THAT : THE APPEAL DOES NOT MEAN MERELY FILING OF THE APPEAL 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 T HE INSTANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IN DEFAULT MADE FOLLOWING OBSERVATION IN THEIR ORDER : IF THE PARTY, AT WHOSE INSTANCE THE REFERENCE IS MADE , FAILS TO APPEAR AT THE HEARING, OR FAILS IN TAKING STE PS FOR PREPARATION OF THE PAPER BOOKS SO AS TO ENABLE HEARING OF THE REFERENCE, THE COURT IS NOT BOUND TO ANSWER THE REFERENCE. 3. IN THE CASE OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX VS. MULTIP LAN INDIA (P) LTD.; 38 ITD 320 (DEL), THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL, WHICH WAS FIXED FOR HEA RING. BUT ON THE DATE OF HEARING NOBODY REPRESENTED THE REVENUE/APPELLANT NOR ANY COMMUNICATION FOR ADJOURNMENT WAS RECEIVED. THERE WAS NO COMMUNICATION OR INFORMATION AS TO WHY THE REVENUE CHOSE TO REMAIN ABSENT ON THAT DATE. THE TRIBUNAL ON THE BASIS OF INHE RENT POWERS, TREATED THE APPEAL FIELD BY THE REVENUE AS UN - ADMITTED IN VIEW OF THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 19 OF THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RULES, 1963. ITA NO. 2006/DEL-2011 3 4. IN THE RESULT, WE TREAT THIS APPEAL AS UNADMITTE D AND DISMISS THE SAME IN LIMINE. THIS DECISION WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COUR T SOON AFTER THE CONCLUSION OF HEARING ON 19.12.2011. SD/- SD/- (B.K. HALDAR) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (U.B.S. BEDI) JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED 19.12.2011 VEENA COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO:- 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR BY ORDER DEPUTY REGISTRAR, ITAT.