M/s Mercury Rubber Mills, Delhi V. DCIT, New Delhi

ITA 2191/DEL/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 118 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7955 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 8 month(s) 8 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-12-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 22-04-2016
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PRATIMA M BISWAS

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH : E : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NOS.2191 & 2192/DEL/2016 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10 & 2010-11 MERCURY RUBBER MILLS, 16, MERCURY HOUSE, COMMUNITY CENTRE, WAZIRPUR INDUSTRIAL AREA, DELHI. PAN : AAAFM8804G VS. DCIT, CIRCLE 19(1), NEW DELHI. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY: MS PRATIMA M. BISWAS, CIT DR DATE OF HEARING : 31.12.2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 31.12.2018 ORDER PER BENCH: THE ABOVE TWO APPEALS BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE SEPARATE ORDERS DATED 14 TH MARCH, 2016 OF THE CIT(A)-12, NEW DELHI RELATING T O ASSESSMENT YEARS 2009-10 & 2010-11, RESPECTIVELY. FOR THE SAKE OF C ONVENIENCE, THESE WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND ARE BEING DISPOSED OF BY THIS COMMON O RDER. ITA NOS.2191 & 2192/DEL/2016 2 2. THESE APPEALS WERE FIRST FIXED FOR HEARING ON 14.11.2018 AND SINCE THE BENCH DID NOT FUNCTION, THE APPEALS WERE ADJOURNED FOR HEARIN G ON 31 ST DECEMBER, 2018. HOWEVER, WHEN THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE WAS CALLED, THERE WAS NO ONE PRESENT FOR THE ASSESSEE NOR ANY APPLICATION SEEKING ADJOURNMENT OF THE APPEALS WAS FILED. IT WAS FURTHER SEEN THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS REQUESTING FOR E ARLY HEARING OF THE APPEALS. HOWEVER, DESPITE SERVICE OF NOTICE THE ASSESSEE DID NOT APPEAR. THEREFORE, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INT ERESTED IN PROSECUTING THE APPEALS FILED BY IT. THE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE, THEREFORE, 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 OBSERVATION:- IF THE PARTY, AT WHOSE INSTANCE THE REFERENCE IS M ADE, FAILS TO APPEAR AT THE HEARING, OR FAILS IN TAKING STEPS FOR PREPARATI ON OF 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 BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL, WAS FIXED FOR HEARING. BUT ON THE DATE OF HEARING NOBODY REPRESE NTED THE REVENUE/APPELLANT NOR ANY COMMUNICATION FOR ADJOURNMENT 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 INHEREN T POWERS, TREATED THE APPEAL ITA NOS.2191 & 2192/DEL/2016 3 FILED BY THE REVENUE AS UNADMITTED IN VIEW OF THE P ROVISION OF RULE 19 OF THE INCOME-TAX (APPELLATE TRIBUNAL) RULES, 1963. 3. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEALS FILED BY THE AS SESSEE ARE DISMISSED FOR NON-PROSECUTION. THE DECISION WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 3 1.12.2018. SD/- SD/- (SUCHITRA KAMABLE) (R.K. PANDA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMFBE R DATED: 31 ST DECEMBER, 2018 DK COPY FORWARDED TO 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR ASSTT. REGISTRAR, ITAT, NEW DELHI