Jai Narayan Bajrang, New Delhi V. ITO (E), New Delhi

ITA 2040/DEL/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 69309 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 09-10-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 03-05-2017
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 08-04-2013
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH D NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI U. B. S. BEDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B. C. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 2040 / DEL/ 2013 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10) JAI NARAYAN BAJRANG VS. ITO, (E), LAL TODI TRUSTS, TRUST WARD IV, D-116, PHASE 1, NEW DELHI OKHLA INDUSTRIAL AREA, NEW DELHI PAN : AAATJ7620F (APPELLANTS) (RESPONDENTS) ASSESSEE BY : NONE DEPARTMENT BY: SHRI VIVEK KUMAR, DR ORDER PER U B S BEDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER: THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE EMANATES FROM THE ORDE R PASSED BY LD. CIT(A) XXI, NEW DELHI DATED 05.02.2013 RELEVANT TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009- 10. 2. DESPITE SENDING NOTICE OF HEARING SUFFICIENTLY I N ADVANCE, THE ASSESSEE DID NOT ATTEND ON THE APPOINTED DATE OF HEARING NOR ANY REQUEST FOR ADJOURNMENT HAS BEEN RECEIVED. IT IS INFERRED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED IN PROSECUTING HIS APPEAL; HENCE, THE AP PEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS LIABLE TO BE DISMISSED, FOR NON-PROSECUTION. IN OU R ABOVE VIEW, WE FIND SUPPORT FROM THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS:- I) IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. B.N. BHATTACHARGEE AND ANOTH ER, REPORTED IN 118 ITR 461 [RELEVANT PAGES 477 & 478], WHEREIN THEIR LORDSHIPS HAVE HELD THAT:- THE APPEAL DOES NOT MEAN MERELY FILING OF THE APPE AL BUT EFFECTIVELY PURSUING IT. I.T.A. NOS. 2040 /DEL/2013 2 II) IN THE CASE OF ESTATE OF LATE TUKOJIRAO HOLKAR VS. CWT; 223 ITR 480 (M.P.) WHILE DISMISSING THE REFERE NCE MADE AT THE INSTANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IN DEFAULT MADE FOL LOWING OBSERVATION IN THEIR 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 REFERENCE, THE COURT IS NOT BOUND TO ANSWER THE REFERENCE. III) IN THE CASE OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX VS. MULTI PLAN INDIA (P.) LTD.; 38 ITD 320 (DEL.), THE APPEAL FILED BY T HE REVENUE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL, WHICH WAS FIXED FOR HEARING. BUT ON THE DATE OF HEARING NOBODY REPRESENTED THE REVENUE/APPE LLANT NOR ANY COMMUNICATION FOR ADJOURNMENT WAS RECEIVED. TH ERE WAS NO COMMUNICATION OR INFORMATION AS TO WHY THE REVEN UE CHOSE TO REMAIN ABSENT ON THAT DATE. THE TRIBUNAL ON THE BA SIS OF INHERENT POWERS, TREATED THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE AS UNADMITTED IN VIEW OF THE PROVISION OF RULE 19 OF THE APPELLATE R ULES, 1963. 3. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASS ESSEE, IS DISMISSED FOR NON- PROSECUTION. 4. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN ON THE DATE OF HEAR ING ITSELF I.E. 09 TH OCTOBER 2013. SD./- SD./- (B. C. MEENA) (U.B.S.BEDI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER SP. COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A)-XXV, NEW DELHI AR, ITAT, 5. CIT(ITAT), NEW DELHI NEW DELHI