Sai Om Films Pvt.Ltd., New Delhi V. ITO, Delhi

ITA 262/DEL/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7317 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 11 month(s) 28 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 11-01-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Next Hearing Date: 11-01-2016
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 13-01-2014
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ANIMA BERNWAL

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH : G : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R.S. SYAL, AM AND SHRI C.M. GARG, JM ITA NOS.262 & 263/DEL/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008-09 SAI OM FILMS PVT. LTD., 546, BIJWASAN, NEW DELHI. PAN: AAKCS0179D VS. ITO, WARD-7(1), DELHI. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY: MS ANIMA BERNWAL, SR.DR DATE OF HEARING : 11.01.2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 11.01.2016 ORDER PER SHRI R.S. SYAL, AM: THESE APPEALS BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT(A) ON 21.10.2013 IN RELATION TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09. 2. WHEN THE MATTER WAS CALLED UP FOR HEARING TOD AY, NO ONE HAS APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FIL ED ANY ADJOURNMENT APPLICATION ALSO. THE NOTICE OF HEARING SENT TO THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN ITA NOS.262 & 263/DEL/2014 2 RETURNED UNSERVED. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, IT APPE ARS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED IN PROSECUTING ITS APPEALS. THE APPE ALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE, THEREFORE, LIABLE TO BE DISMISSED, FOR NON-PRO SECUTION. OUR ABOVE VIEW FINDS SUPPORT FROM THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS:- 1. CIT VS. B.N. BHATTACHARGEE & ANR., 118 ITR 461, WHE REIN THEIR LORDSHIPS HAVE HELD: THE APPEAL DOES NOT MEAN MERELY FILING OF THE APPE AL BUT EFFECTIVELY PURSUING IT. 2. ESTATE OF LATE TUKOJIRAO HOLKAR VS. CWT, 223 ITR 4 80 (M.P.), WHEREIN, WHILE DISMISSING THE REFERENCE MADE AT THE INSTANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IN DEFAULT, THEIR LORDSHIPS MADE THE FOLLO WING OBSERVATION:- 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. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX VS. MULTIPLAN INDIA (P. ) LTD, 38 ITD 320 (DEL.),WHEREIN THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL, WAS FIXED FOR HEARING. BUT ON THE DATE O F HEARING NOBODY REPRESENTED THE REVENUE/APPELLANT NOR ANY COMMUNICA TION FOR ADJOURNMENT WAS RECEIVED. THERE WAS NO COMMUNICATI ON 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 INCOME-TAX (APPELLATE TRIBUNAL) R ULES, 1963. ITA NOS.262 & 263/DEL/2014 3 3. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEALS FILED BY THE AS SESSEE ARE DISMISSED FOR NON- PROSECUTION. THE DECISION WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 1 1 TH JANUARY, 2016. SD/- SD/- (C.M. GARG) (R.S. SYAL) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 11 TH JANUARY, 2016. DK COPY FORWARDED TO 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR DY. REGISTRAR, ITAT, NEW DELHI