M/s Uday Estates Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi V. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 2190/DEL/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 53180 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-11-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: H
• Next Hearing Date: 18-10-2011
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 03-05-2011
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: B R R KUMAR

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH `H : NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI A.D. JAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.2190/DEL./2011 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2004-05) M/S UDAY ESTATES PVT. LIMITED. VS. ACIT, CEN. CIR .5, 6, ALIPUR ROAD, CIVIL LINES, NEW DELHI. DELHI. (PAN/GIR NO.AAAU5923F) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : NONE REVENUE BY : SHRI B.R.R. KUMAR, SR.DR ORDER PER SHAMIM YAHYA: AM THIS IS ASSESSEES APPEAL FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05 AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A)- XXI, NEW DELHI DATED 28.12.2011. 2. AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF THE APPEAL, NEITHER THE ASSESSEE NOR ANY OF HIS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE WERE PRESENT IN SPITE OF THE FACT THAT THE LAST NOTICE WAS SENT ON 12.08.2011 AT THE ADDRESS AVAILABLE IN FORM NO.36 FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. IT IS THUS INFERRED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED IN PUR SUING THE APPEAL. THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS, THEREFORE, DISMISSED AS UNADMITTED FOL LOWING THE RATIO OF DECISIONS RENDERED IN THE FOLLOWING CASES: 1. IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. B.N. BHATTACHARGEE AND AN OTHER, 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. 2. IN THE CASE OF ESTATE OF LATE TUKOJIRAO HOLKAR V S. CWT; 223 ITR 480 (M.P.) WHILE DISMISSING THE REFERENCE MADE AT THE INSTANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IN DEFAULT MADE FOLLOWING OBSERVATION IN THEIR ORDER:- IF THE PARTY, AT WHOSE INSTANCE THE R EFERENCE IS MADE, 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. 2 2 3. SIMILAR VIEW HAS BEEN TAKEN BY ITAT, DELHI BENCH IN THE CASE OF MULTIPLAN INDIA (P).) LTD. REPORTED IN 38 ITD 320 (DEL.). 3. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE ABOVE PRECEDENTS, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED IN LIMINE FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION. HOWEV ER, IT IS CLARIFIED THAT IF ASSESSEE LATER ON EXPLAINS THE REASONS FOR NON-APPEARANCE AND THE BENCH IS SO SATISFIED, THE ORDER PASSED EX-PARTE MAY BE RECALLED FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION OF THE APPEAL. 3. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION. 4. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON THE CONCLUSION OF THE HEARING ON 1810.2011. SD/- SD/- (A.D. JAIN) (SHAMIM YAHYA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED, OCT. 18 2011. SKB COPY FORWARDED TO: 1.APPELLANT 2.RESPONDENT 3.CIT 4.CIT(A)-XXI, NEW DELHI 5.CIT(ITAT), NEW DELHI. AR/ITAT