Uxhur Bharat Ltd., Noida V. Addl. CIT, Noida

ITA 2072/DEL/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 65317 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 4 month(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-08-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: H
• Next Hearing Date: 28-08-2012
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 26-04-2011
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL

Judgement Text

ITA NO.2072/DEL/2011 ASSTT.YEAR: 2007-08 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH `H NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI CHANDRAMOHAN GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A.NO.2072/DEL/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007-08 UXHUR BHARAT LTD., VS ADDL.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, C-7, SECTOR-3, NOIDA RANGE, NOIDA - 201301 NOIDA. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: NONE RESPONDENT BY : MRS. REEN A S.PURI, SR.DR PER CHANDRAMOHAN GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER THIS APPEAL HAS BEEN PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAI NST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(A), GHAZIABAD DATED 25.2 .2008 FOR AY 2007- 08. 2. INITIALLY, THE CASE WAS FIXED FOR HEARING ON 23. 06.2011 AND PASSING THROUGH SEVERAL ADJOURNMENTS, FINALLY THE CASE WAS FIXED FOR HEARING ON 28.8.2012 I.E. TODAY. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, MRS. REENA S.PURI, SR. DR APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT REVENUE BUT NE ITHER THE ASSESSEE NOR HIS REPRESENTATIVE APPEARED BEFORE US AND NO APPLICATIO N FOR ADJOURNMENT OR ANY OTHER REQUEST HAS BEEN PLACED BEFORE US. ITA NO.2072/DEL/2011 ASSTT.YEAR: 2007-08 2 3. IT APPEARS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED I N GETTING THE APPEAL PROSECUTED. HONBLE MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT IN T HE CASE OF TUKOJIRAO HOLKAR VS CWT 223 ITR 480 (MP) , WHILE DISMISSING THE REFERENCE MADE AT THE INSTANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IN DEFAULT, MADE THE F OLLOWING OBSERVATIONS:- IF THE PARTY AT WHOSE INSTANCE, THE REFERENCE IS MADE, FAILS TO APPEAR AT THE HEARING OR FAILS IN TA KING STEPS FOR PREPARATION OF THE PAPER BOOKS SO AS TO E NABLE HEARING OF THE REFERENCE, THE COURT IS NOT BOUND TO ANSWER THE REFERENCE. 4. ITAT DELHI BENCH D IN THE CASE OF CIT VS MULTI PLAN INDIA (P) LTD. 38 ITD 320 OBSERVED THAT THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 19 STATE THAT MERE ISSUE OF NOTICE COULD NOT BY ITSELF MEAN THAT THE APPEAL HAD BEEN ADMITTED. THIS RULE ONLY CLARIFIES THE POSITION. THERE MIGHT BE VARIOUS REASONS WITH THE APPELLANT TO REMAIN ABSENT AT THE TIME OF HEARING. ONE OF TH E REASONS MIGHT ALSO BE A DESIRE OR ABSENCE OF NEED TO PROSECUTE THE APPEAL O R LIABILITY TO ASSIST THE TRIBUNAL IN A PROPER MANNER OR TO TAKE BENEFIT OF V AGARIES OF LAW. 5. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE PRECEDENTS, THE APPEA L FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS TREATED AS UN-ADMITTED AND DISMISSED IN LIMINE. WE MAY LIKE TO CLARIFY THAT SUBSEQUENTLY, IF THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINS THE REA SONS FOR NON-APPEARANCE AND IF THE BENCH IS SO SATISFIED, THE MATTER MAY BE RECALLED FOR THE PURPOSE OF ADJUDICATION OF THE APPEAL. ITA NO.2072/DEL/2011 ASSTT.YEAR: 2007-08 3 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED FOR NON- PROSECUTION. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 28.8.2012. SD/- SD/- (SHAMIM YAHYA) (CHANDRA MOHAN GARG) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DT. 28 TH AUGUST 2012 GS COPY FORWARDED TO:- 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT(A) 4. CIT 5. DR BY ORDER ASSTT. REGISTRAR