M/s. Sahdev Jewellers, New Delhi V. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 2435/DEL/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 121 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5422 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-04-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 24-04-2015
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S R SENAPATI

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH : E , NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. BHAVNESH SAINI , JUDICIAL M EMBER AND SH. O.P. KANT , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO . 2435 /DE L/ 2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011 - 12 M/S. SAHDEV JEWELLERS, C/O - S. KUMAR JAIN & ASSOCIATES, 2481/9, GURUDWARA ROAD, KAROL BAGH, NEW DELHI VS. ACIT, CIRCLE - 51(1), NEW DELHI PAN : AALFS0015Q ( APPELLANT ) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY NONE RESPONDENT BY SH. S.R. SENAPATI, SR.DR DATE OF HEARING 26.04.2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 26.04.2018 ORDER PER O.P. KANT , A. M. : THE PRESENT APPEAL , BY THE ASSESSEE, IS DIRECTED AGAINST ORDER OF CIT(A) - XVII, NEW DELHI, DATED 15.01.2015 PERTAINING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011 - 12 . 2. IN THIS CASE, NOTICE WAS SENT TO THE ASSESSEE BY RPAD AT THE ADDRESS MENTIONED IN FORM NO. 36 VIDE COLUMN NO. 10, FIXING THE CASE FOR HEARING ON 26 .04.2018. ON 26.04.2018 I.E. TODAY, WHEN THE CASE WAS CALLED UP ON , NEITHER THE ASSESSEE NOR ITS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE ATTENDED THE HEARING, NOR ANY APPLICATION FOR ADJOURNMENT HAS BEEN FILED. IT IS, THUS, INFERRED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED IN PROSECUTION OF ITS APPEAL. 3. CONSIDERING THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND KEEPING IN VIEW THE PRO VISIONS OF RULE 19(2) OF THE INCOME - TAX (APPELLATE TRIBUNAL) RULES, 1963 AS WERE CONSIDERED IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. MULTIPLAN INDIA LTD., (38 ITD 320)(DEL), THE ASSESSEE S APPEAL IS LIABLE TO BE DISMISSED FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION. 4. THE HON'BLE MADHYA PR ADESH HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF ESTATE OF LATE TUKOJIRAO HOLKAR VS. CWT (223 ITR 480) HAS HELD AS UNDER: 2 'IF THE PARTY, 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 PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF NEW DIWAN OIL MILLS VS. CIT (2008) 296 ITR 495) RETURNED THE REFERENCE UNANSWERED SINCE THE ASSE SSEE 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 ME MO OF APPEAL BUT EFFECTIVELY PURSUING THE SAME. 7. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE VIEW TAKEN IN THE CASES CITED SUPRA, WE DISMISS THE ABOVE 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 APPLICATION. 8. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION. THE DECISION IS PRONOUN CED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 26 TH APRIL , 201 8 . SD/ - SD/ - ( BHAVNESH SAINI ) ( O.P. KANT ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 26 TH APRIL , 201 8 . RK / - (D.T.D) COPY FORWARDED TO: 1 . APPELLANT 2 . RESPONDENT 3 . CIT 4 . CIT(A) 5 . DR ASST. REGISTRAR, ITAT, NEW DELHI