M/s Ireo Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi V. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 2214/DEL/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 118 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0197 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 11 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-03-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 25-04-2016
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PRAMITA M BISWAS

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH : E , NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAIN I , JUDICIAL M EMBER AND SH RI O.P. KANT , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO .2214 /DE L/ 2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009 - 10 M/S. IREO PVT. LTD., A - 11, 1 ST FLOOR, NEETI BAGH, NEW DELHI VS. ACIT, CENT. CIRCLE - 26, NEW DELHI PAN : AAACO6644B (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY NONE RESPONDENT BY MS. PRAMITA M. BISWAS, CIT(DR) ORDER PER O.P. KANT, A .M. : THIS APPEAL, BY THE ASSESSEE, IS DIRECTED AGAINST ORDER OF CIT(A) - 2 9, NEW DELHI, DATED 29.02.2016 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009 - 10. 2. NONE PUT IN APPEARANCE ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE AT THE HEARING ON 26.03.2019 DESPITE ISSUE OF NOTICE ON 31 .01.2019, THROUGH RPAD AT THE ADDRESS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE IN COLUMN 10 OF THE MEMO OF APPEAL IN FORM NO. 36. FURTHER, NO APPLICATION FOR ADJOURNMENT OF HEARING HAS BEEN RECEIVED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. IT G IVES AN IMPRESSION THAT ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED IN PURSUING ITS APPEAL. 3. CONSIDERING THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND KEEPING IN VIEW THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 19(2) OF THE INCOME - TAX (APPELLATE TRIBUNAL) RULES, 1963 AS WERE CONSIDERED IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. M ULTIPLAN INDIA LTD., (38 ITD 320)(DEL), THE ASSESSEE S APPEAL IS LIABLE TO BE DISMISSED FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION. 4. THE HON'BLE MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF ESTATE OF LATE TUKOJIRAO HOLKAR VS. CWT (223 ITR 480) HAS HELD AS UNDER: DATE OF HEARING 26.03.2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 26.03.2019 2 ITA NO.2214/DEL/2016 'IF THE PA RTY, AT WHOSE INSTANCE THE REFERENCE IS MADE, FAILS 'TO APPEAR AT THE HEARING, OR FAILS IN TAKING STEPS FOR PREPARATION OF THE PAPER BOOKS SO AS TO ENABLE HEARING OF THE REFERENCE, THE COURT IS NOT BOUND TO ANSWER THE REFERENCE. ' 5. SIMILARLY, HON'BLE P UNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF NEW DIWAN OIL MILLS VS. CIT (2008) 296 ITR 495) RETURNED THE REFERENCE UNANSWERED SINCE THE ASSESSEE REMAINED ABSENT AND THERE WAS NOT ANY ASSISTANCE FROM THE ASSESSEE. 6. THEIR LORDSHIPS OF HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. B. BHATTACHARGEE & ANOTHER (118 ITR 461 AT PAGE 477 - 478) HELD THAT THE APPEAL DOES NOT MEAN, MERE FILING OF THE MEMO OF APPEAL BUT EFFECTIVELY PURSUING THE SAME. 7. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE VIEW TAKEN IN THE CASES CITED SUPRA, W E DISMISS THE APPEAL FOR NON - PROSECUTION. BEFORE PARTING, WE ADD THAT IN CASE THE ASSESSEE IS SERIOUS IN PURSUING THE APPEAL FILED, THEN IT WOULD BE AT LIBERTY TO PRAY FOR A RECALL OF THIS ORDER BY MOVING AN APPROPRIATE PETITION AND ALSO BY TAKING APPROPRI ATE ACTION TO CORRECT THE DEFECTS, IF ANY, POINTED OUT. THE CO - ORDINATE BENCH CONSIDERING THE PETITION, IF SO SATISFIED WITH THE EXPLANATION AND THE ACTIONS OF CURING THE DEFECTS, MAY RECALL THIS ORDER. 8. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DIS MISSED FOR NON - PROSECUTION. ORDER PRONOUN CED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 2 6 T H MARCH, 201 9 . S D / - S D / - [ BHAVNESH SAINI ] [O.P. KANT] JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 2 6 T H MARCH , 2019 . RK / - [D.T.D.S] COPY FORWARDED TO: 1 . APPELLANT 2 . RESPONDENT 3 . CIT 4 . CIT(A) 5 . DR ASST. REGISTRAR, ITAT, NEW DELHI