Rahul Chaudhry, Ghaziabad V. ITO, Ghaziabad

ITA 2276/DEL/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 58988 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 10 month(s) 14 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-03-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Next Hearing Date: 28-03-2012
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 14-05-2010
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: C B SINGH

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH F : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI U.B.S. BEDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI K.D. RANJAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A.NO.2276/DEL/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2005-06 RAHUL CHAUDHRY, ITO A-15, LOHIA NAGAR, VS. WARD 2(2), GHAZIABAD. GHAZIABAD. AENPC0399F (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY : C.B. SINGH, SR. DR O R D E R PER K.D. RANJAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE FOR ASSTT. YEAR 2005-06 ARISES O UT OF ORDER OF CIT(A) GHAZIABAD. 2. THIS APPEAL WAS FIXED FOR HEARING FOR THE FIRST TIM E ON 15.7.2010 ON WHICH DATE THE BENCH DID NOT FUNCTION. THIS APPEA L WAS AGAIN FIXED FOR HEARING ON 17.01.2011. NONE ATTENDED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE . THE CASE WAS ADJOURNED TO 29.6.2011. AGAIN ON THIS DAT E THE BENCH DID NOT FUNCTION. THE CASE WAS AGAIN FIXED FOR HEARIN G ON 14.12.2011 AND AT THE REQUEST OF LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE HEARING WA S ADJOURNED FOR 28 TH MARCH, 2012. ON THIS DATE NONE ATTENDED ON BEHALF O F THE ASSESSEE NOR WAS ANY APPLICATION FOR ADJOURNMENT FILED. IT APPEARS 2 THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED IN GETTING THE APPEAL PROSECUTED. HONBLE MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF TUKO JIRAO HOLKAR VS. CWT 223 ITR 480 (MP) WHILE DISMISSING THE REFERENCE MADE AT THE INSTANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IN DEFAULT MADE THE FOLLOWING O BSERVATIONS : IF THE PARTY AT WHOSE INSTANCE, THE REFERENCE IS MADE , FAILS TO APPEAR AT THE HEARING OR FAILS IN TAKING STEPS FOR PRE PARATION OF THE PAPER BOOK SO AS TO ENABLE HEARING OF THE REFEREN CE, THE COURT IS NOT BOUND TO ANSWER THE REFERENCE. 3. ITAT DELHI BENCH D IN THE CASE OF CIT V. MULTIP LAN INDIA (P) LTD. OBSERVED THAT THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 19 STATE THAT MERE ISSUE OF NOTICE COULD NOT BY ITSELF MEAN THAT THE APPEAL HAD BEEN ADMITTED. THIS RULE ONLY CLARIFIES THE POSITION. THERE MIGHT BE VARIOUS REASONS WITH THE APPELLANT TO REMAIN ABSENT AT THE TIME OF H EARING. ONE OF THE REASONS MIGHT ALSO BE A DESIRE OR ABSENCE OF NEED TO PRO SECUTE THE APPEAL OR LIABILITY TO ASSIST THE TRIBUNAL IN A PROPER MANNER OR TO TAKE BENEFIT OF VAGARIES OF LAW. 4. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE PRECEDENTS THE APPEAL F ILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS TREATED AS UN-ADMITTED AND DISMISSED IN LIMINE. WE MAY LIKE TO CLARIFY THAT SUBSEQUENTLY IF THE ASSESSEE EXPLAIN S THE REASONS FOR NON-APPEARANCE AND IF THE BENCH IS SO SATISFIED, TH E MATTER MAY BE RECALLED FOR THE PURPOSE OF ADJUDICATION OF THE A PPEAL. 3 5. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED FOR NON- PROSECUTION. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 28 TH MARCH, 2012. SD/- SD/- (U.B.S. BEDI) JUDICIAL MEMBER (K.D. RANJAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED : 28.3.2012 VEENA COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO:- 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR BY ORDER DEPUTY REGISTRAR, ITAT