Suman Sharma, New Delhi V. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 2017/DEL/2013

• Counselvise Citation: 201720114 RSA 2013
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 07-10-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 07-10-2013
• Assessment Year: 2001-2002
• Appeal Filed On: 05-04-2013
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SATPAL SINGH

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH C NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI T.S. KAPOOR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO.2017/DEL/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2001-02 SUMAN SHARMA, ITO, 11-SAINIK VIHAR, WARD-25 (1), PITAMPURA, NEW DELHI. V. NEW DELHI. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN /GIR/NO. PAN /GIR/NO. PAN /GIR/NO. PAN /GIR/NO.A AA AWDPS WDPS WDPS WDPS- -- -1138 1138 1138 1138- -- -A AA A APPELLANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY : SHRI SATPAL SINGH, SR. DR. ORDER PER TS KAPOOR, AM: THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD CIT(A) DATED 11.10.2013. NONE WAS PRESENT ON THE DAT E OF HEARING. IT APPEARS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED IN PROSECUTIN G THE APPEAL. HENCE THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS LIABLE TO BE D ISMISSED FOR NON PROSECUTION. IN OUR ABOVE VIEW, WE FIND SUPPORT FROM THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS:- 1. IN THE CASE OF CIT V. B.N. BHATTACHARGEE & ANOTHE R 118 ITR 461 (RELEVANT PAGES 477 & 478) WHEREIN THEIR LORDSHIP S HAVE HELD THAT THE APPEAL DOES NOT MEAN MERELY FILING OF APPEAL BUT EFFECTIVELY OF PURSUING IT. ITA NO2017/DEL/2013 2 2. IN THE CASE OF ESTATE OF LATE TUKOJI RAO HOLKER V . CWT 223 IR 480 (MP) WHILE DISMISSING THE REFERENCE MADE AT THE I NSTANCE OF ASSESSEE IN DEFAULT MADE FOLLOWING OBSERVATIONS IN THEIR ORDER: IF THE PARTY AT WHOSE INSTANCE THE REFERENCE IS MADE , FAILS TO APPEAR AT THE HEARING, OR FAILS IN TAKING STEPS FOR PR EPARATION OF THE PAPER BOOKS SO AS TO ENABLE HEARING OF THE REFEREN CE, THIS COURT IS NOT BOUND TO ANSWER THE REFERENCE. 3. IN THE CASE OF CIT V. MULTIPLAN INDIA PVT. LTD. 3 8 ITD 320 (DEL.) THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL WHICH WAS FIXED FOR HEARING BUT ON THE DATE OF HEARING NOBODY REPRESENTED THE REVENUE/APPLICANT, NOR ANY COMMUNICATION FOR AD JOURNMENT WAS RECEIVED. THERE WAS NO COMMUNICATION OR INFORMAT ION AS TO WHY REVENUE CHOOSE TO REMAIN ABSENT ON THAT DATE. T HE TRIBUNAL ON THE BASIS OF INHERENT POWER TREATED THE APPEAL FI LED BY THE REVENUE AS UN-ADMITTED IN VIEW OF RULE 19 OF THE APP ELLATE TRIBUNAL RULES, 1963. THEREFORE, KEEPING IN VIEW THE ABOVE, THE APPEAL FI LED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED FOR NON PROSECUTION. 2. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 7TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2013. SD/- SD/- (RAJPAL YADAV) (T.S. KAPOOR) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DT. 07.10.2013. HMS 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 DEL HI. TRUE COPY. ITA NO2017/DEL/2013 3 (ITAT, NEW DELHI). DATE OF HEARING 7.10.2013 DATE OF DICTATION 7.10.2013 DATE OF TYPING 7.10.2013 DATE OF ORDER SIGNED BY 7.10.2013 BOTH THE MEMBERS & PRONOUNCEMENT. DATE OF ORDER UPLOADED ON NET 9.10.2013 & SENT TO THE BENCH CONCERNED.