M/s. Rathi Ispat Ltd., New Delhi V. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 2462/DEL/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 81751 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 4 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 14-10-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Next Hearing Date: 14-10-2014
• Assessment Year: 2001-2002
• Appeal Filed On: 22-05-2012
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: DEVI SHARAN SINGH

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH F, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI J.S. REDDY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NOS. 2462, 2463 & 2464/DEL/2012 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2001-02, 2006-07 & 2008-09 RATHI ISPAT LTD. VS. ACIT, C/O O.P. SAPRA & ASSOCIATES, CIRCLE 15(1), C-763, NEW FRIENDS COLONY, NEW DELHI. NEW DELHI. AAACR2470C (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY : SH. DEVI SHARAN SINGH, SR. D R ORDER PER H.S. SIDHU, J.M. THESE THREE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DIRE CTED AGAINST THE TWO SEPARATE ORDERS OF LD. CIT(A) DATED 20.03.2012 FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2001- 02 & 2006-07 AND DATED 19/03.2012 FOR A.Y. 2008-09 . 2. THE ASSESSEES APPEAL WAS FIXED FOR HEARING ON 1 4.010.2014 WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE BY REGISTERED POST ON THE AD DRESS GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE IN FORM NO. 36 COLUMN NO. 10, IN RESPONSE TO THE SAME THE ASSESSEE NOT ITS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE APPEARE D NOR FILED AN APPLICATION FOR ADJOURNMENT. 3. KEEPING IN VIEW OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES W E ARE OF THE VIEW THAT NO USEFUL PURPOSE WOULD BE SERVED TO ISSUE NOTICE A GAIN AND AGAIN TO THE ITA NOS. 2462 TO 2464/D/2012 RATHI ISPAT LTD. 2 ASSESSEE ON THE SAME ADDRESS. THEREFORE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED TO PROSECUTE THE MATTER IN DISPUTE AND THE PRESENT APPEALS ARE DISMISSED AS UN-ADMITTED IN LIMINE. TH EREFORE, WE DISMISS THE SAME FOR NON-PROSECUTION, FINDING SUPPORT FROM THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS: 1. IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. B.N. BHATTACHARGEE AND ANOT HER, REPORTED IN 118 ITR 461 [RELEVANT PAGES 477 & 478] WHEREIN THEIR LORDSHIPS HAVE HELD THAT: 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 PAPER BOOKS SO AS TO ENABLE HEAR ING 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 THE 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. TH ERE WAS NO COMMUNICATION OR INFORMATION AS TO WHY THE REVEN UE CHOSE TO REMAIN ABSENT ON THAT DATE. THE TRIBUNAL ON THE BASIS OF INHERENT POWERS, TREATED THE APPEAL FILED BY THE RE VENUE AS UN- ITA NOS. 2462 TO 2464/D/2012 RATHI ISPAT LTD. 3 ADMITTED IN VIEW OF THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 19 OF TH E APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RULES, 1963. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED FOR NON- PROSECUTION. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 14/10/2014 SD/- SD/- (J.S. REDDY) (H.S. SIDHU) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 14/10/2014 *KAVITA COPY FORWARDED TO: - 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT TRUE COPY BY ORDER, ASSISTANT REGISTRAR