Sh. Om Parkash Sangwan, New Delhi V. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 2928/DEL/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7348 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 1 month(s) 4 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 16-06-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC 2
• Next Hearing Date: 16-06-2016
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 12-05-2014
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: N J SINGH

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES : SMC-II : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R.S. SYAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NOS.2926 & 2928/DEL/2014 ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2006-07 & 2009-10 OM PARKASH SANGWAN, 21/8, TOP FLOOR, GITA MANDIR MARG, NEW RAJINDER NAGAR, NEW DELHI. PAN: AAZPS5602F VS. ITO, WARD-33(4), NEW DELHI. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : NONE DEPARTMENT BY : SHRI N.J. SINGH, SR. DR DATE OF HEARING : 16. 06.2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 16.06.2016 ORDER THESE APPEALS BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT(A) ON 21.02.2014 IN RELATION TO ASSESSME NT YEARS 2006-07 AND 2009-10. ITA NOS.2926 & 2928/DEL/2014 2 2. WHEN THE MATTERS WERE CALLED UP FOR HEARING T ODAY, NO ONE HAS APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE HA S NOT FILED ANY ADJOURNMENT APPLICATION ALSO. THE NOTICE OF HEARING SENT TO THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN RETURNED BY THE POSTAL AUTHORITIES UNSERVE D WITH THE REMARK LEFT. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO NOT PROVIDED ANY NEW ADDRESS TO WHICH THE NOTICE OF HEARING COULD BE SENT. IN THESE CIRCUMST ANCES, IT APPEARS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED IN PROSECUTING HIS A PPEALS. THE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE, THEREFORE, LIABLE TO BE DISMISSED, FOR NON- PROSECUTION. 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 F OLLOWING OBSERVATION:- ITA NOS.2926 & 2928/DEL/2014 3 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 REVE NUE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL, WAS FIXED FOR HEARING. BUT ON THE DA TE OF HEARING NOBODY REPRESENTED THE REVENUE/APPELLANT NOR ANY COMMUNICATION FOR ADJOURNMENT WAS RECEIVED. THERE WAS NO COMMUNICATION OR INFORMATION AS TO WHY THE REVENUE CHOSE TO REMAIN ABSENT ON THAT DATE. THE TRIBUNAL ON THE BA SIS OF INHERENT POWERS, TREATED THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE AS UNADMITTED IN VIEW OF THE PROVISION OF RULE 19 OF THE INCOME-TAX (APPELLATE TRIBUNAL) RULES, 1963. 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 6 TH JUNE, 2016. SD/- [R.S. SYAL] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED, 16 TH JUNE, 2016. DK ITA NOS.2926 & 2928/DEL/2014 4 COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT AR, ITAT, NEW DELHI.