Pramod Kumar Tibrewala, New Delhi V. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 2247/DEL/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6346 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 11 month(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-04-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Next Hearing Date: 12-02-2014
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 10-05-2012
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH F NEW DELHI) BEFORE SMT. DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI T.S. KAPOOR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO.2247/DEL/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008-09 SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR TIBERWALA, ITO, 3A/501, RANG RASAYAN, SECTOR-13, WARD-37 (1), ROHINI, NEW DELHI. V. NEW DELHI. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN /GIR/NO. PAN /GIR/NO. PAN /GIR/NO. PAN /GIR/NO.AACPT AACPT AACPT AACPT- -- -0701 0701 0701 0701- -- -B BB B APPELLANT BY : NONE. RESPONDENT BY : MS. MEENAKSHI VOHRA, SR. DR. ORDER PER TS KAPOOR, AM: THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD CIT(A) DATED 2.3.2012 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09. THE APPEAL WAS ORIGINALLY FIXED FOR HEARING ON 12.7.2012 ON WHICH DAY AT THE REQUEST OF COUNSEL OF ASSESSEE IT WAS ADJOURNED TO 25.9.2012 ON WHIC H DATE ALSO ADJOURNMENT WAS GRANTED. THEREAFTER, THE CASE GOT ADJ OURNED ON THREE OCCASIONS AS THE BENCH DID NOT FUNCTION AND FINALLY IT WAS LISTED FOR HEARING ON 12.2.2014 I.E. TODAY. ON THE DATE OF HEA RING, NOBODY WAS PRESENT THEREFORE APPEAL WAS PASSED OVER. IN THE SECOND ROUND ALSO NOBODY WAS PRESENT. IT APPEARS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INT ERESTED IN PROSECUTING THE APPEAL. HENCE THE APPEAL FILED BY TH E ASSESSEE IS LIABLE TO BE DISMISSED FOR NON PROSECUTION. IN OUR ABOV E 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 NO2247/DEL/2012 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 APPEAL FI LED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. 2. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 12TH DAY O F FEBRUARY, 2014 SD/- SD/- (DIVA SINGH) (T.S. KAPOOR) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DT.12.02.2014. HMS COPY FORWARDED TO:- 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT 4. THE CIT (A)-, NEW DELHI. ITA NO2247/DEL/2012 3 5. THE DR, ITAT, LOKNAYAK BHAWAN, KHAN MARKET, NEW DEL HI. TRUE COPY. (ITAT, NEW DELHI). DATE OF HEARING 12.2.2014 DATE OF DICTATION 12.2.2014 DATE OF TYPING 12.2.2014 DATE OF ORDER SIGNED BY 12.4.2014/17.4.2014 BOTH THE MEMBERS & PRONOUNCEMENT. DATE OF ORDER UPLOADED ON NET & SENT TO THE BENCH CONCERNED.