Fincap Portfolio Ltd., New Delhi V. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 2294/DEL/2012

• Counselvise Citation: 229420114 RSA 2012
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 9 month(s) 20 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 04-03-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 12-07-2017
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 15-05-2012
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PARWINDER KAUR

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES : B NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI G.C. GUPTA, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI T.S. KAPOOR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO: 2294/DEL/2012 AY : - 2008-09 FINCAP PORTFOLIO LTD. VS. ITO 222-223, ASHIRWAD, WARD 11 (2) D-1, GREEN PARK C.R. B UILDING NEW DELHI. NEW DELHI. (PAN AAACF1889P) (APPELLANT) (RESPON DENT) APPELLANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY : SMT. PARWINDER KAUR, SR. DR DATE OF HEARING : 17.2.2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 4.3.2015 O R D E R PER G.C. GUPTA, VICE PRESIDENT THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE OF THE ASSES SMENT YEAR 2008-09 IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF CITA. AT THE TIME OF HEARING N ONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE APPELLANT. THE APPLICATION FOR ADJOURNMENT FILED BY THE ASSESSEE DO NOT SHOW ANY REASONABLE GROUND FOR ADJOURNING THE MATTE R WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN MENTIONED THAT THE NEXT DATE BE GIVEN AFTER JUNE, 2 015. IN THESE FACTS THE APPLICATION OF THE ASSESSEE FOR ADJOURNMENT OF THE CASE WAS REJECTED BY THE BENCH. THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE WAS ADJOURNED MANY TIMES ON PREVIOUS OCCASIONS AT THE REQUEST OF THE ASSESSEE. IN THESE FACTS WE ARE OF T HE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT SEEM TO BE INTERESTED IN PURSUING ITS APPEAL BE FORE THE TRIBUNAL. HONBLE MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF TUKOJIRAO HOLKAR VS CWT 223 ITR 480 ITA NO.2294/DEL/2012 FINCAP PO RTFOLIO LTD. VS. ITO. 2 (MP) , WHILE DISMISSING THE REFERENCE MADE AT THE INSTAN CE OF THE ASSESSEE IN DEFAULT, MADE THE FOLLOWING OBSERVATIONS:- IF THE PARTY AT WHOSE INSTANCE, THE REFERENCE IS M ADE, FAILS TO APPEAR AT THE HEARING OR FAILS IN TAKING STEPS FOR PREPARATION OF THE PAPER BOOKS SO AS TO ENABLE HEARING OF THE REFE RENCE, THE COURT IS NOT BOUND TO ANSWER THE REFERENCE. 2. ITAT DELHI BENCH D IN THE CASE OF CIT VS MULTIPLAN INDIA (P) LTD. 38 ITD 320 OBSERVED THAT THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 19 STATE THAT MERE ISSUE OF NOTICE COULD NOT BY ITSELF MEAN THAT THE APPEAL HAD BEEN ADMITTE D. THIS RULE ONLY CLARIFIES THE POSITION. THERE MIGHT BE VARIOUS REASONS WITH THE A PPELLANT TO REMAIN ABSENT AT THE TIME OF HEARING. ONE OF THE REASONS MIGHT ALSO BE A DESIRE OR ABSENCE OF NEED TO PROSECUTE THE APPEAL OR LIABILITY TO ASSIST THE TRI BUNAL IN A PROPER MANNER OR TO TAKE BENEFIT OF VAGARIES OF LAW. 3. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE PRECEDENTS, THE APPEA L FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS TREATED AS UN-ADMITTED AND DISMISSED IN LIMINE. WE MAY LIKE TO CLARIFY THAT SUBSEQUENTLY, IF THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINS THE REASONS FOR NON-APPEARANCE AND IF THE BENCH IS SO SATISFIED, THE MATTER MAY BE RECALLED F OR THE PURPOSE OF ADJUDICATION OF THE APPEAL. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED FOR NON- PROSECUTION SD/- SD/- (T.S. KAPOOR) (G.C. GUPTA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VICE PRESIDE NT DATED: THE *VEENA COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT ITA NO.2294/DEL/2012 FINCAP PO RTFOLIO LTD. VS. ITO. 3 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER DY. REGISTRAR SL. NO. DESCRIPTION DATE 1. DATE OF DICTATION BY THE AUTHOR 17.2.2015 2. DRAFT PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER 17.2.2015 3. DRAFT PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER 4. DRAFT APPROVED BY THE SECOND MEMBER 5. DATE OF APPROVED ORDER COMES TO THE SR. PS 6. DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER 7. DATE OF FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK 8. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK 9. DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER