Rayban Organics (P) Ltd., Faridabad V. JCIT, Ghaziabad

ITA 2615/DEL/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 125 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7252 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 2 month(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 03-07-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: I
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 01-05-2015
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH : F , NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. BHAVNESH SAINI , JUDICIAL M EMBER AND SH. O.P. KANT , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO .2615 /DE L/ 2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010 - 11 RAYBAN ORGANICS (P) LTD., C/O - M/S. CHORDIYA & COMPANY, CAS, 826, SECTOR - 15A, FARIDABAD VS. JCIT, RANGE - 2, GHAZIABAD PAN : AACCR8032N ( APPELLANT ) (RESPONDENT) ORDER PER O.P. KANT , A. M. : THIS APPEAL, BY THE ASSESSEE, IS DIRECTED AGAINST ORDER OF CIT(A) , MUZAFFARNAGAR , DATED 16.02.2015 PERTAINING TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010 - 11. 2. IN THIS CASE, NOTICE WAS SENT TO THE ASSESSEE BY RPAD ON 15.05.2018 AT THE ADDRESS MENTIONED IN FORM NO. 36, FIXING THE CASE FOR HEARING ON 03.07.2018 . IN SPITE OF THIS, ON 03.07.2018 WHEN THE CASE WAS CALLED UPON, NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE, NOR ANY APPLICATION FOR ADJOURNMENT HAS BEEN FILED. IT IS, THUS, INFERRED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED IN PROSECUTION OF HIS APPEAL. 3. CONSIDERING THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND KEEPING IN VIEW THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 19(2) OF THE INCOME - TAX (APPELLAT E 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 PRADESH HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF ESTATE OF LATE TU KOJIRAO HOLKAR VS. CWT (223 ITR 480) HAS HELD AS UNDER: APPELLANT BY NONE RESPONDENT BY SH. ATIQ AHMED, SR. DR DATE OF HEARING 03.07.2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 03.07.2018 2 ITA NO. 2615/DEL/2015 '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 COUR T 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 ASSESSEE REMAINED ABSENT AND THERE WAS NOT ANY ASSISTA NCE 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 MEMO 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 O F THIS ORDER BY MOVING AN APPROPRIATE APPLICATION. 8. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED FOR NON - PROSECUTION. THE DECISION IS PRONOUN CED IN THE OPEN COURT. SD/ - SD/ - ( BHAVNESH SAINI ) ( O.P. KANT ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 3 RD JULY , 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