Swastik Builders & Developers, Meerut V. CIT, Meerut

ITA 3006/DEL/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6922 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 4 month(s) 14 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-09-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Next Hearing Date: 27-09-2016
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 14-05-2013
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH : G NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. H.S. SIDHU , JUDICIAL M EMBER AND SH. O.P. KANT , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 3006 /DEL/ 2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008 - 09 M/S. SWASTIK BUILDERS & DEVELOPERS, 4, BHAVYA PALACE, PALLAVPURAM - II, MEERUT VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MEERUT PAN : AAZFS8184N (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY NONE RESPONDENT BY SH. N.K. BANSAL, SR.DR DATE OF HEARING 27.09.2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 28.09.2016 ORDER PER O.P. KANT , A. M. : THE PRESENT APPEAL, BY THE ASSESSEE, IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MEERUT, DATED 25/03/2013 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008 - 09 . 2. EARLIER THE CASE WAS FIXED FOR SEVERAL TIMES BUT ON THE REQUEST OF ASSESSE E S COUNSEL AS WELL AS DUE TO NON - APPEARANCE ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE, THE CASE WAS ADJOURNED . LASTLY, ON 23.05.2016, THE CASE WAS ADJOURNED TO 27.09.2016 ON THE WRITTEN REQUEST OF ASSESSEE S COUNSEL , WHICH WAS INFORMED TO BOTH THE PARTIES. DESPITE THIS ON 27.09.2016, WHEN THE CASE WAS CALLED OUT, AGAIN NONE RESPONDED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE , NOR HAS ANY APPLICATION FOR ADJOURNMENT BEEN RECEIVED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. IT GIVES AN IMPRESSION THAT ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED IN PURSUING THE APPEAL. 3. CONSIDERING THE FA CTS 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. 3006/DEL/2013 AY: 2008 - 09 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 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 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 THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED FOR NON - PROSECUTION. THE DECISION IS PRONOUN CED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 2 8 T H SEPT., 2016 . S D / - S D / - ( H.S. SIDHU ) ( O.P. KANT ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 2 8 T H SEPTEMBER , 2016 . RK / - COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR ASST. REGISTRAR, ITAT, NEW DELHI