M/s. Haryana Agencies, Delhi V. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 211/DEL/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 69173 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 4 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 16-08-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 07-08-2013
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 11-01-2013
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S K UPADHYAY

Judgement Text

ITA NO.211/DEL/2013 ASSTT.YEAR: 2007-08 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH `C NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI J. SUDHAKAR REDDY AND SHRI CHANDRA MOHAN GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A.NO.211/DEL/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007-08 M/S HARYANA AGENCIES, VS INCOME TAX OFFICER , 1568, CHURCH ROAD, WARD 20(2), NEW DELHI. KASHMIRI GATE, DELHI. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: NONE RESPONDENT BY : SHRI S.K. UPADHYAY, SR . DR O R D E R PER CHANDRA MOHAN GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER THE ABOVE APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGA INST THE ORDER OF CIT(A)-XXII, NEW DELHI DATED 23.10.2012 PERTAINING TO AY 2007-08. 2. THIS APPEAL WAS INITIALLY FIXED FOR HEARING ON 1 4.03.2013 BUT ON THE FIXED DATE, HEARING WAS ADJOURNED TO 07.08.2013 AT THE REQUEST OF ASSESSEES COUNSEL AND BOTH PARTIES WERE INFORMED. TODAY ON 0 7.08.2013, NO ONE WAS PRESENT ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE NOR ANY REQUEST F OR ADJOURNMENT WAS PLACED BEFORE THE BENCH. SHRI S.K. UPADHYAY, SR. DR, APPE ARED ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE AT THE TIME OF HEARING. ITA NO.211/DEL/2013 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 THE CASE OF TUKOJIRAO HOLKAR VS CWT 223 ITR 480 (MP) , WHILE DISMISSING THE REFERENCE MADE AT THE INSTANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IN D EFAULT, MADE THE FOLLOWING 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 MULTIPLAN 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 A PPEAL 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 THE REASONS MIGHT ALSO BE A DESIRE OR ABSENCE OF NEED TO PROSECUTE TH E APPEAL OR LIABILITY TO ASSIST THE TRIBUNAL IN A PROPER MANNER OR TO TAKE B ENEFIT OF VAGARIES 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.211/DEL/2013 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 16.8.2013. SD/- SD/- (J.S. REDDY) (CHANDRAMOHAN GARG) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DT. 16 TH AUGUST 2013 GS COPY FORWARDED TO:- 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. C.I.T.(A) 4. C.I.T. 5. DR BY ORDER ASSTT.REGISTRAR