M/s. Prayag Educational Trust, Noida V. CIT (Exemptions), Lucknow

ITA 2095/DEL/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 126 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3994 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 9 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-01-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 18-04-2016
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES : C : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R.S. SYAL, VICE PRESIDENT AND SMT. BEENA A. PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.2095/DEL/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR : NA PRAYAG EDUCATIONAL TRUST, J-206/A-1, SECTOR-41, NOIDA. PAN: AACPT6222F VS. CIT (EXEMPTIONS), TC 64V, UP STATE CONSTRUCTION & INFRASTRUCTURE DEV. CORPORATION, VIBHUTI KHAND, GOMTI NAGAR, LUCKNOW. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : NONE DEPARTMENT BY : SMT. SIMRAN BHULLAR, CIT, DR DATE OF HEARING : 25.01.2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 25.01.2017 ORDER PER R.S. SYAL, VP: THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAI NST THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT(E) ON 10.02.2016. ITA NO.2095/DEL/2016 2 2. WHEN THE MATTER WAS CALLED UP FOR HEARING TOD AY, NO ONE HAS APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED ANY ADJOURNMENT APPLICATION ALSO. THE NOTICE OF HEARING SENT TO THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN RETURNED UNSERVED. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, IT APPEARS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED IN PROSECUTING ITS APPEAL. THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS, THEREF ORE, LIABLE TO BE DISMISSED, FOR NON-PROSECUTION. OUR ABOVE VIEW FINDS SUPPORT FROM THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS:- 1. CIT VS. B.N. BHATTACHARGEE & ANR., 118 ITR 461, WHE REIN THEIR LORDSHIPS HAVE HELD: THE APPEAL DOES NOT MEAN MERELY FILING OF THE APPE AL BUT EFFECTIVELY PURSUING IT. 2. ESTATE OF LATE TUKOJIRAO HOLKAR VS. CWT, 223 ITR 4 80 (M.P.), WHEREIN, WHILE DISMISSING THE REFERENCE MADE AT THE INSTANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IN DEFAULT, THEIR LORDSHIPS MADE THE FOLLOWING OBSERVA TION:- IF THE PARTY, AT WHOSE INSTANCE THE REFERENCE IS M ADE, FAILS TO APPEAR AT THE HEARING, OR FAILS IN TAKING STEPS FOR PREPARATION O F THE REFERENCE, THE COURT IS NOT BOUND TO ANSWER THE REFERENCE. 3. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX VS. MULTIPLAN INDIA (P. ) LTD, 38 ITD 320 (DEL.),WHEREIN THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE BEFO RE THE TRIBUNAL, WAS FIXED FOR HEARING. BUT ON THE DATE OF HEARING NOBO DY REPRESENTED THE REVENUE/APPELLANT NOR ANY COMMUNICATION FOR ADJOURN MENT 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 INHERENT POWERS, TREATED THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE AS UNADMITTED IN VIEW OF ITA NO.2095/DEL/2016 3 THE PROVISION OF RULE 19 OF THE INCOME-TAX (APPELLA TE TRIBUNAL) RULES, 1963. 3. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSE SSEE IS DISMISSED FOR NON- PROSECUTION. THE ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 25.01.2 018. SD/- SD/- [BEENA A. PILLAI] [R.S. SYAL] JUDICIAL MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT DATED, 25 TH JANUARY, 2018. DK COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT AR, ITAT, NEW DELHI.