Valentine Garments, New Delhi V. DCIT, New Delhi

ITA 2430/DEL/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 81675 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 4 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-09-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: H
• Next Hearing Date: 19-08-2014
• Assessment Year: 2002-2003
• Appeal Filed On: 25-04-2013
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SAMEER SHARMA

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH H , NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI I. C. SUDHIR, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI T.S. KAPOOR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO.2430 /DEL/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2002-03 M/S. VALENTINUS GARMENTS, VS. DCIT, CIRCLE 27(1), A-16, NARAINA INDSL. AREA, NEW DELHI PHASE II, NEW DELHI-110028 GIR / PAN:AACFV3470F (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY : SHRI SAMEER SHARMA, SR. DR ORDER PER T.S. KAPOOR, AM: 1. THIS IS ASSESSEES APPEAL FILED AGAINST THE ORDE R OF CIT(A)-XXIV, NEW DELHI DATED 21.01.2013FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002- 03. 2. NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE D ATE OF HEARING ON 24.10.2012 FOR WHICH NOTICE WAS ISSUED WELL IN ADVA NCE. TO GIVE ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE, THE HEARING WAS A DJOURNED TO 03.03.2014 ON WHICH BENCH DID NOT FUNCTION AND IT W AS FURTHER ADJOURNED TO 19.08.2014 FOR WHICH NOTICE WAS SENT WELL IN ADV ANCE THROUGH RPAD, WHICH RETURNED UNSERVED WITH THE POSTAL REMARKS TH IS FIRM HAS BEEN CLOSED. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED ANY APPLICATION FOR CHANGE OF ADDRESS NOR ANY APPLICATION FOR ADJOURNMENT HAS BEEN FILED. IT SEEMS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED IN PROSECUTING HIS APPEA L; HENCE, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS LIABLE TO BE DISMISSED, FOR NON- PROSECUTION. IN OUR ABOVE VIEW, WE FIND SUPPORT FROM THE FOLLOWING DECI SIONS:- 1. IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. B.N. BHATTACHARGEE AND ANOTH ER, REPORTED IN 118 ITR 461 [RELEVANT PAGES 477 & 478], WHEREIN THEIR LORDSHIPS HAVE HELD THAT:- ITA NO.2430./DEL/2013 2 THE APPEAL DOES NOT MEAN MERELY FILING OF THE APPE AL BUT EFFECTIVELY PURSUING IT. 2. IN THE CASE OF ESTATE OF LATE TUKOJIRAO HOLKAR VS. CWT; 223 ITR 480 (M.P.) WHILE DISMISSING THE REFERENCE MADE AT T HE INSTANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IN DEFAULT MADE FOLLOWING OBSERVATI ON IN THEIR ORDER:- 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 REFERENCE, THE COURT IS NOT BOUND TO ANSWER THE REFERENCE. 3. IN THE CASE OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX VS. MULTI PLAN INDIA (P.) LTD.; 38 ITD 320 (DEL.), THE APPEAL FILED BY T HE REVENUE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL, WHICH WAS FIXED FOR HEARING. BUT ON THE DATE OF HEARING NOBODY REPRESENTED THE REVENUE/APPE LLANT 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 BA SIS OF INHERENT POWERS, TREATED THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE AS UNADMITTED IN VIEW OF THE PROVISION OF RULE 19 OF THE APPELLATE R ULES, 1963. 3. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASS ESSEE, IS DISMISSED FOR NON-PROSECUTION. 4. THE DECISION AS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT IS PRONOUNCED TODAY ON 12 TH SEP., 2014. SD./- SD./- (I.C.SUDHIR) (T.S. KAPOOR) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATE: 12 TH SEP., 2014 SP ITA NO.2430./DEL/2013 3 COPY FORWARDED TO:- 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT 4. THE CIT (A)-, NEW DELHI. 5. THE DR, ITAT, LOKNAYAK BHAWAN, KHAN MARKET, NEW DEL HI. TRUE COPY. BY ORDER (ITAT, NEW DELHI). DATE OF HEARING DATE OF DICTATION DATE OF TYPING DATE OF ORDER SIGNED BY BOTH THE MEMBERS & PRONOUNCEMENT. DATE OF ORDER UPLOADED ON NET & SENT TO THE BENCH CONCERNED.