M/s. Indian Summers, New Delhi V. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 289/DEL/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 52861 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 8 month(s) 24 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 14-10-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 12-08-2013
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 20-01-2010
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SALIL MISHRA

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH `C : NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI C.L.SETHI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.289/DEL./2010 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2004-05) M/S INDIAN SUMMER, VS. ACIT, CIRCLE 22(1), F-24/4, OKHLA INDUSTRIAL AREA, NEW DELHI. PHASE-II, NEW DELHI. (PAN/GIR NO.AAAFI7501C) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : NONE REVENUE BY : SHRI SALIL MISHRA., SR.DR ORDER PER SHAMIM YAHYA: AM THIS IS ASSESSEES APPEAL FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05 AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A)- XXIII, NEW DELHI DATED 01.12.2009. 2. AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF THE APPEAL, NEITHER THE ASSESSEE NOR ANY OF HIS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE WERE PRESENT IN SPITE OF THE FACT THAT AS PER THE DIRECTION OF HONBLE HIGH COURT AT DELHI AT NEW DELHI VIDE JUDGM ENT DATED 21.1.2011, THE APPEAL WAS FIXED FOR 14.10.2011, FOR WHICH A NOTICE DATED 25.8.2011, AND ISSUED ON 30.8.2011 WAS SENT AND SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE AS IS EVIDENT FROM ACKNOWLEDGEMENT RECEIPT PLACED ON RECORD. IT IS THUS INFERRED THAT THE ASS ESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED IN PURSUING THE APPEAL. THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS, THEREFORE, DISMISSED AS UNADMITTED FOLLOWING THE RATIO OF DECISIONS RENDERED IN THE FOLLOWING CASES: 1. IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. B.N. BHATTACHARGEE AND AN OTHER, REPORTED IN 118 ITR 461 [RELEVANT PAGES 477 & 478], WHEREIN THEIR 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 THE INSTANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IN DEFAULT MADE FOLLOWING OBSERVATION IN THEIR ORDER:- 2 2 IF THE PARTY, AT WHOSE INSTANCE THE R EFERENCE IS MADE, 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. SIMILAR VIEW HAS BEEN TAKEN BY ITAT, DELHI BENCH IN THE CASE OF MULTIPLAN INDIA (P).) LTD. REPORTED IN 38 ITD 320 (DEL.). 3. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE ABOVE PRECEDENTS, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED IN LIMINE FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION. HOWEV ER, IT IS CLARIFIED THAT IF ASSESSEE LATER ON EXPLAINS THE REASONS FOR NON-APPEARANCE AND THE BENCH IS SO SATISFIED, THE ORDER PASSED EX-PARTE MAY BE RECALLED FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION OF THE APPEAL. 3. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION. 4. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON THE CONCLUSION OF THE HEARING ON 14.10.2011. SD/- SD/- (C.L.SETHI) ((SHAMIM YAHYA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED, OCT. 14, 2011. SKB COPY FORWARDED TO: 1.APPELLANT 2.RESPONDENT 3.CIT 4.CIT(A)-XXIII, NEW DELHI 5.CIT(ITAT), NEW DELHI. AR/ITAT