Brijesh Charitable Trust, Panipat V. ACIT, Panipat

ITA 2783/DEL/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4631 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 year(s) 3 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-09-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 02-08-2017
• Assessment Year: 1993-1994
• Appeal Filed On: 07-06-2012
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: APARNA KARAN
• Keywords: Charitable institution

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH : A , NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. AMIT SHUKLA , JUDICIAL M EMBER AND SH. O.P. KANT , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO S . 2783 & 2784 /DE L/ 2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR S : 1993 - 94 & 1994 - 95 BRIJESH CHARITABLE TRUST, C/O - M/S. SOHAN LAL VEER BHAN, SHOP NO. 50, NEW WOOL MARKET, PANIPAT VS. ACIT, PANIPAT CIRCLE, PANIPAT PAN : AAATB9939P (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY NONE RESPONDENT BY SMT. APARNA KARAN, CIT(DR) DATE OF HEARING 12.09.2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 12.09.2017 ORDER PER BENCH: THESE APPEALS, BY THE ASSESSEE, ARE DIRECTED AGAINST COMMON ORDER OF LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL), KARNAL, DATED 03.10.2007 FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 1993 - 94 AND 1994 - 95 RESPECTIVELY. 2. FOR THE FIRST TIME, T HE APPEAL S CAME UP FOR HEARING BEFORE THE BENCH ON 07.08.2012, ON WHICH DATE, THE CASE WAS ADJOURNED TO 19.12.2012 ON THE WRITTEN REQUEST OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL. THEREAFTER, ON SEVERAL OCCASIONS THE APPEALS WERE LISTED FOR HEARING BUT ON REQUEST OF THE ASSESEE S COUNSEL , THE CASE WAS ADJOURNED. ON THE LAST DATE OF HEARING I.E. 02.08.2017, THE CASE WAS AGAIN ADJOURNED TO 12.09.2017 ON THE REQUEST OF THE ASSESSEE S COUNSEL. ON 12.09.2017, WHEN THE CASE 2 WAS CALLED UPON, NONE TURNED UP ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. IT IS, THUS, INFERRED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED IN PROSECUTION OF THE APPEALS , THEREFORE, IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, NO USEFUL PURPOSE WOULD BE SERVED 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 CONSIDERED IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. MULTIPLAN INDIA LTD., (38 ITD 320)(DEL), THE ASSESSEE S APPEAL S ARE LIABLE TO B E 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 - 4 78) 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 DISMISS THE ABOVE APPEAL S FOR NON - PROSECUTION. BEFORE PARTING, WE ADD THAT IN CASE THE ASSESSEE IS SERIOUS IN PURSUING THE APPEAL S FILED, THEN IT WOULD BE AT LIBERTY TO PRAY FOR A RECALL OF THIS ORDER BY MOVING AN APPROPRIATE APPLICATION. 3 7. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEAL S OF THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED FOR NON - PROSECUTION. THE D ECISION IS PRONOUN CED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 1 2 T H SEPT. , 201 7 . S D / - S D / - ( AMIT SHUKLA ) ( O.P. KANT ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 1 2 T H SEPTEMBER , 201 7 . RK / - (D.T.D) COPY FORWARDED TO: 1 . APPELLANT 2 . RESPONDENT 3 . CIT 4 . CIT(A) 5 . DR ASST. REGISTRAR, ITAT, NEW DELHI