Supratik Stock & Securities (P) Ltd., New Delhi V. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 3031/DEL/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 134 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4306 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 10 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-04-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Next Hearing Date: 23-05-2017
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 15-06-2010
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SURJANI MOHANTY

Judgement Text

ITA NO. 3031/DEL/2010 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH G: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI A.D. JAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 3031/DEL/2010 A.Y. : 2006-07 M/S SUPRATIK STOCK & SECURITIES (P) LTD., VS. AC IT, CIRCLE 9 (1) W-50, GREATER KAILASH-II, NEW DELHI NEW DELHI [PAN : AAJCS2565G] (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : NONE DEPARTMENT BY : SMT. SURJANI MOHANTY, (D.R.) O R D E R PER SHAMIM YAHYA: AM THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THIS APPEAL AGAINST THE ORD ER DATED 12.3.2010 PASSED BY THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPE ALS)-XI, NEW DELHI PERTAINING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. 2. THIS CASE WAS LISTED FOR HEARING BEFORE THE TRI BUNAL ON 17-08-2010 AND ADJOURNED ON THE REQUEST OF THE ASSESSEE FOR 13.12. 2010. ON 13.12.2010 THE CASE WAS FURTHER ADJOURNED ON THE REQUEST OF THE AS SESSEES COUNSEL, SHRI RAJESH DUREJA, ADVOCATE FOR 19.4.2011 AND HE WAS IN FORMED ACCORDINGLY. AGAIN TODAY I.E. ON 19-4-2011 WHEN THE CASE WAS CAL LED ON BOARD, NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE NOR ANY REQUEST FOR ADJOURNMENT HAS BEEN ITA NO. 3031/DEL/2010 2 FILED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL DESPITE NOTED BY THE ASSE SSEE AND ITS COUNSEL. IT SEEMS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED IN PROSEC UTING ITS APPEAL; HENCE, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS LIABLE TO BE DISMIS SED, FOR NON-PROSECUTION. IN OUR ABOVE VIEW, WE FIND SUPPORT FROM THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS: 1. IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. B.N. BHATTACHARGEE AND ANOTH ER, REPORTED IN 118 ITR 461 [RELEVANT PAGES 477 & 478] WHEREIN THEIR LO RDSHIPS 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 VS. 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: 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 PAPER BOOKS SO AS TO ENABLE HEARING OF THE REFE RENCE, THE COURT IS NOT BOUND TO ANSWER THE REFERENCE. 3. IN THE CASE OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX VS. MULTI PLAN INDIA (P) LTD.; 38 ITD 320 (DEL), THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE B EFORE THE TRIBUNAL, WHICH WAS FIXED FOR HEARING. BUT ON THE DATE OF HE ARING NOBODY REPRESENTED THE REVENUE/APPELLANT NOR ANY COMMUNICA TION FOR ADJOURNMENT WAS RECEIVED. THERE WAS NO COMMUNICATI ON OR INFORMATION AS TO WHY THE REVENUE CHOSE TO REMAIN ABSENT ON THA T DATE. THE TRIBUNAL ON THE BASIS OF INHERENT POWERS, TREATED THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE ITA NO. 3031/DEL/2010 3 AS UN-ADMITTED IN VIEW OF THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 19 OF THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RULES, 1963. 3. THE ASSESSEE, IF SO DESIRED, SHALL BE FREE TO MO VE THIS TRIBUNAL PRAYING FOR RECALLING THIS ORDER AND EXPLAINING REASONS FOR NON -COMPLIANCE ETC. THEN THIS ORDER MAY BE RECALLED. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE , IS DISMISSED, FOR NON- PROSECUTION. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 19/4/2011 UPON CONCLUSION OF THE HEARING. SD/- SD/- [A.D. JAIN) [SHAMIM YAHYA] JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATE: 19/4/2011 SRB COPY FORWARDED TO: - 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT TRUE COPY BY ORDER, DEPUTY REGISTRAR, ITAT, DELHI BENCHES