Pradeep Kumar Gambhir, New Delhi V. DCIT, New Delhi

ITA 2732/DEL/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 130 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7015 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 7 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 11-01-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Next Hearing Date: 05-01-2017
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 06-06-2012
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 32; 147; 131; 68; 246; 69; 145; 27; 148; 54; 37; 6; 56; 263; 63; 132; 12; 28; 144; 10; 90; 154; 2; 11; 15; 271(1)(b); 139; 92; 201

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH : F NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. H.S. SIDHU , JUDICIAL M EMBER AND SH. O.P. KANT , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO S . 2732 & 2733 /DEL/ 2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR S : 2004 - 05 & 2005 - 06 PRADEEP KUMAR GAMBHIR , C/O - RAVI GUPTA, ADVOCATE, D - 10, KAILASH COLONY, NEW DELHI VS. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 9, NEW DELHI PAN : AHXPG8117E (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY NONE RESPONDENT BY SH. VIJAY KUMAR, CIT(DR) DATE OF HEARING 05.01.2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 11.01.2017 ORDER PER O.P. KANT , A. M. : THESE TWO A PPEAL S , BY THE ASSESSEE, ARE DIRECTED AGAINST SEPARATE ORDER S OF LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL) - XXXII , NEW DELHI , DATED 26.03.2012 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004 - 05 AND 2005 - 06 RESPECTIVELY . 2. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, NOBODY WAS PRESENT ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE, NOR ANY APPLICATION FOR ADJOURNMENT WAS FILED. N OTICE OF HEARING FOR 05 .01.2017 WAS SENT TO THE A SSESSEE BY R P AD ON 10.11.2016 AT THE ADDRESS MENTIONED IN FORM NO. 36 VIDE COLU MN NO. 10 WHICH HAS BEEN RETURNED BACK BY THE POSTAL AUTHORITY WITH THE REMARK NO SUCH PERSON . IT IS , THUS , INFERRED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED IN PROSECUTION OF HIS APPEAL S , THEREFORE, IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, NO USEFUL PURPOSE WOULD BE SERVE D TO SEND THE NOTICE AGAIN AND AGAIN ON THE SAME ADDRESS. 3. CONSIDERING THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND KEEPING IN VIEW THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 19(2) OF THE INCOME - TAX (APPELLATE TRIBUNAL) RULES, 1963 AS WERE 2 ITA NO. 2732 & 2733/DEL/2012 AY: 2004 - 05 & 2005 - 06 CONSIDERED IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. MULTIPLAN INDI A LTD., (38 ITD 320)(DEL), THE ASSESSEE S APPEAL S ARE LIABLE TO BE DISMISSED FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION. 3. THE HON'BLE MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF ESTATE OF LATE TUKOJIRAO HOLKAR VS. CWT (223 ITR 480) HAS HELD AS UNDER: '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 COURT IS NOT BOUND TO ANSWER THE REFERENCE. ' 4. 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 ASSISTANCE FROM THE ASSESSEE. 5. 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. 6. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE VIEW TAKEN IN THE CASES CITED SUPRA, WE DISMIS S THE ABOVE APPEAL S 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 OF THIS ORDER BY MOVING AN APPROPRIATE APPLICATION. 7. IN THE RESULT, BOTH T HE APPEAL S OF THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED FOR NON - PROSECUTION. THE DECISION IS PRONOUN CED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 1 1 T H JANUARY , 201 7 . SD / - S D / - ( H.S. SIDHU ) ( O.P. KANT ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 1 1 T H JANUARY , 201 7 . LAPTOP / - COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR ASST. REGISTRAR, ITAT, NEW DELHI