Sunil Kumar Aggarwal, New Delhi V. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 2142/DEL/2013

• Counselvise Citation: 214220114 RSA 2013
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 14-10-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Assessment Year: 2002-2003
• Appeal Filed On: 11-04-2013
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: NIDHI SRIVASTAVA

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH C NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI T.S. KAPOOR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO.2130 & 2142/DEL/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2002-03 & 2002-03 SH.SUNIL KR. AGARWAL, ITO, A-3/53, SECTOR-3, WARD-25 (3), ROHINI, NEW DELHI. V. NEW DELHI. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN /GIR/NO. PAN /GIR/NO. PAN /GIR/NO. PAN /GIR/NO.AA AAAA AAEP EPEP EPA AA A- -- -1569 1569 1569 1569- -- -J JJ J APPELLANT BY : NONE. RESPONDENT BY : SMT. NIDHI SRIVASTAVA, SR.DR. ORDER PER BENCH: THESE ARE TWO APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE QU ANTUM ADDITION AS WELL AS PENALTY ORDER PASSED BY LD CIT(A) O N DATRED 31.1.2012 AND ON 23.1.2013 RESPECTIVELY. THESE APPE ALS WERE LISTED FOR HEARING TODAY I.E. 14.10.2013. THE NOTICES FOR H EARING WERE PERSONALLY RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, NOBODY APP EARED FOR HEARING NOR ANY APPLICATION FOR ADJOURNMENT WAS FILE D. IT APPEARS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED IN PROSECUTING THE APPEAL. HENCE THE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE LIABLE TO BE DISMISSED F OR NON PROSECUTION. IN OUR ABOVE VIEW, WE FIND SUPPORT FROM THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS:- 1. IN THE CASE OF CIT V. B.N. BHATTACHARGEE & ANOTHE R 118 ITR 461 (RELEVANT PAGES 477 & 478) WHEREIN THEIR LORDSHIP S HAVE ITA NO2142 & 2130/DEL/2013 2 HELD THAT THE APPEAL DOES NOT MEAN MERELY FILING OF APPEAL BUT EFFECTIVELY OF PURSUING IT. 2. IN THE CASE OF ESTATE OF LATE TUKOJI RAO HOLKER V . CWT 223 IR 480 (MP) WHILE DISMISSING THE REFERENCE MADE AT THE I NSTANCE OF ASSESSEE IN DEFAULT MADE FOLLOWING OBSERVATIONS IN THEIR ORDER: IF THE PARTY AT WHOSE INSTANCE THE REFERENCE IS MADE , FAILS TO APPEAR AT THE HEARING, OR FAILS IN TAKING STEPS FOR PR EPARATION OF THE PAPER BOOKS SO AS TO ENABLE HEARING OF THE REFEREN CE, THIS COURT IS NOT BOUND TO ANSWER THE REFERENCE. 3. IN THE CASE OF CIT V. MULTIPLAN INDIA PVT. LTD. 3 8 ITD 320 (DEL.) THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL WHICH WAS FIXED FOR HEARING BUT ON THE DATE OF HEARING NOBODY REPRESENTED THE REVENUE/APPLICANT, NOR ANY COMMUNICATION FOR AD JOURNMENT WAS RECEIVED. THERE WAS NO COMMUNICATION OR INFORMAT ION AS TO WHY REVENUE CHOOSE TO REMAIN ABSENT ON THAT DATE. T HE TRIBUNAL ON THE BASIS OF INHERENT POWER TREATED THE APPEAL FI LED BY THE REVENUE AS UN-ADMITTED IN VIEW OF RULE 19 OF THE APP ELLATE TRIBUNAL RULES, 1963. THEREFORE, KEEPING IN VIEW THE ABOVE, THE APPEALS FI LED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED FOR NON PROSECUTION. 2. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 14TH DAY O F OCTOBER, 2013. SD/- SD/- (RAJPAL YADAV ) (T.S. KAPOOR) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DT. 14.10.2013. HMS COPY FORWARDED TO:- ITA NO2142 & 2130/DEL/2013 3 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT 4. THE CIT (A)-, NEW DELHI. 5. THE DR, ITAT, LOKNAYAK BHAWAN, KHAN MARKET, NEW DEL HI. TRUE COPY. BY ORDER (ITAT, NEW DELHI). DATE OF HEARING 14.10.2013 DATE OF DICTATION 14.10.2013 DATE OF TYPING 14.10.2013 DATE OF ORDER SIGNED BY 14.10.2013 BOTH THE MEMBERS & PRONOUNCEMENT. DATE OF ORDER UPLOADED ON NET & SENT TO THE BENCH CONCERNED.