Mrs. Naina Sadh, New Delhi V. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 2576/DEL/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 74019 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 7 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 17-01-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Next Hearing Date: 05-12-2013
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 28-05-2012
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH : E : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI G.D. AGRAWAL, HONBLE VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI A.D. JAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.2576/DEL/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2005-06 NAINA SADH, 82, KAILASH HILLS, NEW DELHI. PAN : ABSPS3968C VS. ACIT, CIRCLE 23 (1), NEW DELHI. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: NONE RESPONDENT BY: SHRI KEYUR PATEL, SR.DR ORDER PER SHRI A.D. JAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER: THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 31.01.2012 PASSED BY THE CIT(A)-XII, NEW DELHI FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005- 06. 2. WHEN THE MATTER WAS CALLED UP FOR HEARING ON 05.12.2013, NO ONE HAS APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE HA S NOT FILED ANY ADJOURNMENT APPLICATION ALSO. THE NOTICE OF HEARING WAS SENT TO THE ASSESSEE WHICH HAS NOT BEEN RETURNED UNSERVED. EARLIER, ON 1 7.07.2013 TOO, NONE HAD APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE, WHEN THE MATTER WAS CALLED FOR HEARING DESPITE NOTICE OF HEARING HAVING BEEN SENT TO THE A SSESSEE. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, IT APPEARS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED IN PROSECUTING HER APPEAL. THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS, TH EREFORE, LIABLE TO BE DISMISSED, FOR NON-PROSECUTION. OUR ABOVE VIEW FIN DS SUPPORT FROM THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS:- ITA NO. 2576 /DEL/2012 2 1. IN CIT VS. B.N. BHATTACHARGEE & ANR., 118 ITR 461, THEIR LORDSHIPS HAVE HELD: THE APPEAL DOES NOT MEAN MERELY FILING OF THE APPE AL BUT EFFECTIVELY PURSUING IT. 2. IN ESTATE OF LATE TUKOJIRAO HOLKAR VS. CWT, 22 3 ITR 480 (M.P.) WHILE DISMISSING THE REFERENCE MADE AT THE INSTANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IN DEFAULT, THEIR LORDSHIPS MADE THE FOLLOWING OBSE RVATION:- 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 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX VS. MULTIPLAN IND IA (P.) LTD, 38 ITD 320 (DEL.), THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL, WAS FIXED FOR HEARING. BUT ON THE DATE OF HEARING NOBO DY REPRESENTED THE REVENUE/APPELLANT NOR ANY COMMUNICATION FOR ADJOURN MENT WAS RECEIVED. THERE WAS NO COMMUNICATION OR INFORMATIO N AS TO WHY THE REVENUE CHOSE TO REMAIN ABSENT ON THAT DATE. THE T RIBUNAL ON THE BASIS OF INHERENT POWERS, TREATED THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE AS UNADMITTED IN VIEW OF THE PROVISION OF RULE 19 OF T HE APPELLATE RULES, 1963. 3. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASS ESSEE IS DISMISSED FOR NON- PROSECUTION. THE DECISION WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 1 7.01.2014. SD/- SD/- (G.D. AGRAWAL) (A.D. JAIN) VICE PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 17.01.2014. DK COPY FORWARDED TO 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR DY. REGISTRA R, ITAT, NEW DELHI