Shubhani Engineering & Consultants Pvt. Ltd, New Delhi V. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 2018/DEL/2009

• Counselvise Citation: [2009] 115 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2307 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 21 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 03-12-2009
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Next Hearing Date: 27-02-2013
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 13-05-2009
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: B KISHORE

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES: G NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI D.R.SINGH, JM AND SHRI K.D. RANJAN, AM ITA NO. 2018/DEL/2009 A.Y. 2005-06 SHUBANI ENGINEERING & VS. ITO, WARD 8(3) CONSULTANTS P.LTD. NEW D ELHI WB-128, GALI NO.1, SCHOOL BLOCK SHAKARPUR DELHI 92 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY : SH. B.KISHORE, SR.D.R. O R D E R PER D.R. SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THIS APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDE R PASSED BY THE CIT (A), NEW DELHI IN APPEAL NO. 79/2008-09 DATE D 20.3.2009. 2. THIS CASE WAS LISTED FOR HEARING BEFORE THE TRIB UNAL ON 3.12.2009. NOTICE OF HEARING WAS SENT TO THE ASSESEE FOR THIS DATE THROUGH REGD. POST A.D. ON 6.11.2009 BUT THE POSTAL AUTHORITIES HAVE N OT RETURNED THE NOTICE EITHER SERVED OR UNSERVED. AS SUFFICIENT TIME HAS EAPSED FROM THE DATE OF THE ISSUE OF NOTICE TILL THE DATE OF HEARING, SO TH IS NOTICE IS DEEMED TO HAVE BEEN SERVED UPON THE ASSESEE. 3. TODAY I.E. ON 3.12.09, WHEN THE CASE WA S CALLED ON BOARD, NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE NOR ANY REQUEST FOR ADJOURNMENT HAS BEEN FILED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. IT SEEMS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED IN PROSECUTING HIS APPEAL, HENCE, THE A PPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS LIABLE TO BE UNADMITTED/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. 4. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THESE DECISIONS (SUPRA), THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESEE IS TREATED AS UNADMITTED/DISMISSED FOR NON PROSECUTION. WE MAY LIKE TO CLARIFY THAT SUBSEQUENTLY IF THE ASSESS EE 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. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESE E IS DISMISSED FOR NON PROSECUTION. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 03.12.2009 IMMEDI ATELY AFTER CONCLUSION OF THE HEARING. (K.D.RANJAN) (D.R.SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMB ER DATED: 3 RD DECEMBER, 2009 *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 //