M/s. Hanumant Builders and Land Developers, Delhi V. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 2916/DEL/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6758 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 5 month(s) 18 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-10-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 25-10-2016
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 09-05-2014
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: AMIT LAL

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH : C NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. H.S. SIDHU , JUDICIAL M EMBER AND SH. O.P. KANT , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 2916 /DEL/ 2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009 - 10 M/S. HANUMANT BUILDERS AND LAND DEVELOPERS, D - 112, VIVEK VIHAR, DELHI VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER(A) - XXVII, NEW DELHI PAN : AAEFH1486P (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY NONE RESPONDENT BY SH. AMIT LAL, SR.DR DATE OF HEARING 25.10.2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 27.10.2016 ORDER PER O.P. KANT , A. M. : THIS APPEAL, BY THE ASSESSEE, IS DIRECTED AGAINST ORDER OF LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) - XXVII, NEW DELHI, DATED 18.02.2014 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009 - 10. 2. IN THIS CASE, THE NOTICE WAS SENT TO THE ASSESSEE FOR HEARING BY REGD. AD POST FOR 25.10.2016 AT THE A DDRESS MENTIONED IN FORM NO. 36 VIDE COLUMN NO. 10, BUT NEITHER THE ASSESSEE NOR HIS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE ATTENDED THE HEARING AND ALSO NOT FILED ANY APPLICATION FOR ADJOURNMENT. IT IS THUS INFERRED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED IN PROSECUTIO N OF ITS APPEAL, 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 (AP PELLATE TRIBUNAL) RULES, 1963 AS WERE 2 ITA NO. 2916/DEL/2014 AY: 2009 - 10 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. 3. THE HON'BLE MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF ESTATE OF L ATE 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 SUPR EME 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 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 OF THIS ORDER BY MOVING AN APPROPRIATE APPLICATION. 7. IN T HE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED FOR NON - PROSECUTION. THE DECISION IS PRONOUN CED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 2 7 T H OCTOBER , 2016 . S D / - S D / - ( H.S. SIDHU ) ( O.P. KANT ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 2 7 T H OCTOBER , 2016 . LAPTOP / - COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR ASST. REGISTRAR, ITAT, NEW DELHI