Surat Singh, V. ITO, Ward-3,

ITA 2602/DEL/2005

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 81511 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 9 year(s) 2 month(s) 6 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 07-08-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Next Hearing Date: 05-08-2014
• Assessment Year: 1995-1996
• Appeal Filed On: 31-05-2005
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAMESH CHANDRA

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH G , NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI T.S. KAPOOR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NOS.2602 TO 2607 /DEL/2005 ASSESSMENT YEARS : 1994-95 TO 1999-2000 SHRI SURAT SINGH, VS. CIT, FARIDABAD H.NO.1, ZAILDAR BHAWAN, V & P.O. JHARSA, DISTT. GURGAON (HARYANA) GIR / PAN: (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY : SHRI RAMESH CHANDRA, CIT DR ORDER PER BENCH: THESE SIX APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE FILED AGAINS T THE CONSOLIDATED ORDER OF CIT, FARIDABAD DATED 23.03.2004 FOR THE AS SESSMENT YEARS 1994-95 TO 1999-2000. 2. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, NOBODY WAS PRESENT ON BE HALF OF THE ASSESSEE NEITHER THERE WAS ANY APPLICATION FOR ADJOURNMENT. FROM THE RECORDS, WE FIND THAT ON 08.05.2013 ALSO NOBODY WAS PRESENT ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE, THEREFORE FRESH NOTICE WAS ORDERED TO BE ISSUED THR OUGH DEPARTMENT AND HEARING WAS FIXED FOR 27.08.2013. ON THIS DATE, ON THE WRITTEN REQUEST OF THE LD. A.R., THESE APPEALS WERE ADJOURNED FOR HEARING ON 06.02.2014. AGAIN ON 06.02.2014 ON THE REQUEST OF LD. A.R. THE APPEALS W ERE ADJOURNED FOR HEARING ON 05.08.2014 I.E. TODAY. HOWEVER, DESPITE BEING AWARE OF DATE OF HEARING, NOBODY APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. FROM THE CONDUCT OF THE ASSESSEE, IT SEEMS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERES TED IN PROSECUTING HIS APPEALS HENCE, THE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AR E LIABLE TO BE DISMISSED, FOR NON-PROSECUTION. IN OUR ABOVE VIEW, WE FIND SU PPORT FROM THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS:- ITA NOS.2602-2607/DEL/2005 2 1. IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. B.N. BHATTACHARGEE AND ANOTH ER, REPORTED IN 118 ITR 461 [RELEVANT PAGES 477 & 478], WHEREIN THE IR 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 V S. CWT; 223 ITR 480 (M.P.) WHILE DISMISSING THE REFERENCE MADE AT T HE INSTANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IN DEFAULT MADE FOLLOWING OBSERVATION 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 THE RE VENUE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL, WHICH WAS FIXED FOR HEARING. BUT ON THE DATE OF HEARING NOBODY REPRESENTED THE REVENUE/APPELLANT NOR ANY CO MMUNICATION FOR ADJOURNMENT WAS RECEIVED. THERE WAS NO COMMUNI CATION OR INFORMATION AS TO WHY THE REVENUE CHOSE TO REMAIN A BSENT ON THAT DATE. THE TRIBUNAL ON THE BASIS OF INHERENT POWERS , TREATED THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE AS UNADMITTED IN VIEW O F THE PROVISION OF RULE 19 OF THE APPELLATE RULES, 1963. 3. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEALS FILED BY THE AS SESSEE, ARE DISMISSED FOR NON- PROSECUTION. 4. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 07 TH AUG., 2014. SD./- SD./- (GEORGE GEORGE K) (T.S. KAPOOR) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATE: 07 TH AUG., 2014 SP ITA NOS.2602-2607/DEL/2005 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).