Naushad Ahmed, New Delhi V. ITO, Saharanpur

ITA 3139/DEL/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6677 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 9 month(s) 8 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-02-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Next Hearing Date: 23-02-2016
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 21-05-2014
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: P DAM KANUNJNA

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: E: NEW DELHI BEFORE SMT. DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. O.P. KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NOS. 527/DEL/2011 & 3139/DEL/2014 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2006-07 & 2007-08 MOHD. NAUSHAD AHMED , VILL. & PO- GHOGREKI SADAK DUDHLI, KAILASHPUR, SAHARANPUR. (PAN:AAAM8640D) VS. ITO, WARD-2, SAHARANPUR (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) AND ITA NOS. 3137 &3138/DEL/2014; 528/DEL/2011 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2006-07 , 2007-08 ; 2006-07 & 200 7-08 MOHD. NAUSHAD AHMED & SONS (AOP), C/O- O.P. SAPRA & ASSOCIATES, ADVOCATES, C-763, NEW FRIENDS COLONY, NEW DELHI (PAN:AAAM8640D) VS. ITO, WARD-2, SAHARANPUR (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY NONE RESPONDENT BY SH. P. DAM KANUNJNA, SR.DR DATE OF HEARING 23.02.2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 29.02.2016 ORDER PER BENCH: THESE APPEALS, BY THE ASSESSEE, ARE DIRECTED AGAINS T DIFFERENT ORDERS LD. CIT(A) FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2006-07 AND 2007-08 . 2 2. NONE PUT IN APPEARANCE ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE AT THE HEARING DESPITE ISSUE OF NOTICE FOR HEARING, THROUGH REGISTERED POS T AT THE ADDRESS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE IN COLUMN 10 OF THE MEMO OF APPEAL IN FORM NO. 36. AS THE NOTICE HAS NOT RETURNED BACK, IT CAN, THEREFORE, SAFELY BE PRESUMED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN SERVED WITH THE NOTICE OF HEARING. NO APPLICAT ION FOR ADJOURNMENT OF HEARING HAS BEEN RECEIVED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE . IT GIVES AN IMPRESSION THAT ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED IN PURSUING ITS APPEAL. CONSIDERING THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND KEEPING IN VIEW THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 19(2) OF THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RULES AS WERE CONSIDERED IN THE CASE OF CI T VS. MULTIPLAN INDIA LTD., (38 ITD 320)(DEL), THE ASSESSEES APPEALS ARE LIAB LE TO BE DISMISSED FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION. 3. THE HON'BLE MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT IN THE CA SE OF ESTATE OF LATE TUKOJIRAO HOLKAR VS. CWT (223 ITR 480) HAS HELD AS UNDER: '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 R EFERENCE, 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) RETURNE D THE REFERENCE UNANSWERED SINCE THE ASSESSEE REMAINED ABSENT AND THERE WAS NO T ANY ASSISTANCE FROM THE ASSESSEE. 5. THEIR LORDSHIPS OF HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. B. BHATTACHARGEE & ANOTHER (118 ITR 461 AT PAGE 477-47 8) HELD THAT THE APPEAL 3 DOES NOT MEAN, MERE FILING OF THE MEMO OF APPEAL BU T EFFECTIVELY PURSUING THE SAME. 6. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE VIEW TAKEN IN THE CA SES CITED SUPRA, WE DISMISS THE APPEAL FOR NON-PROSECUTION. BEFORE PARTING, WE ADD THAT IN CASE THE ASSESSEE IS SERIOUS IN PURSUING THE APPEAL FILED, THEN IT WO ULD BE AT LIBERTY TO PRAY FOR A RECALL OF THIS ORDER BY MOVING AN APPROPRIATE PETIT ION AND ALSO BY TAKING APPROPRIATE ACTION TO CORRECT THE DEFECTS POINTED O UT. THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH CONSIDERING THE PETITION IF SO MOVED, IF SO SATISFI ED WITH THE EXPLANATION AND THE ACTIONS OF CURING THE DEFECTS, MAY RECALL THIS ORDE R. 7. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASS ESSEE ARE DISMISSED. THE DECISION IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 29 TH FEBRUARY, 2016. SD/- SD/- (DIVA SINGH) (O.P. KANT) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 29 TH FEBRUARY, 2016. RK/- COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR ASST. REGISTRAR, ITAT, NEW DELHI 4 SL. NO. PARTICULARS DATE 1. DATE OF DICTATION (HAND WRITTEN ) 25.02.2016 2. DATE ON WHICH THE DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER 26.02.2016 3. DRAFT PLACED BEFORE THE OTHER MEMBER 4. APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR. PS/PS 5. KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT ON 6. FINAL ORDER RECEIVED AFTER PRONOUNCEMENT 7. FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK 8. DATE ON WHICH FILES GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK 9. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR 10. DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER