M/s. Laksons Footwear Pvt. Ltd., Faridabad V. ACIT, Faridabad

ITA 3202/DEL/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 112 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5724 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 6 month(s) 10 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-11-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 20-05-2015
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 201

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH : B , NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. H.S. SIDHU , JUDICIAL M EMBER AND SH. O.P. KANT , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO .3202 /DE L/ 2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011 - 12 M/S. LAKSONS FOOTWEAR PVT. LTD., PLOT NO. 265, SECTOR - 24, FARIDABAD VS. ACIT, CIRCLE - II, FARIDABAD PAN : AAACL3114B (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ORDER PER O.P. KANT, AM: THIS APPEAL, BY THE ASSESSEE, IS D IRECTED AGAINST ORDER OF CIT(A), FARIDABAD , DATED 12.03.2015 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011 - 12 . 2. NONE PUT IN APPEARANCE ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE AT THE HEARING DESPITE ISSUE OF NOTICE FOR HEARING, THROUGH RPAD AT THE ADDRESS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE IN COLUMN 10 OF THE MEMO OF APPEAL IN FORM NO. 36. THE ENVELOPE, CONTAINING THE NOTICE OF HEARING HA S RETURNED UNSERVED WITH THE REMARK LEFT . NO APPLICATION 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. 3. CONSIDERING THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND KEE PING IN VIEW THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 19(2) OF THE INCOME - TAX (APPELLATE TRIBUNAL) RULES, 1963 AS WERE 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. 4. T HE HON'BLE MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF ESTATE OF LATE TUKOJIRAO HOLKAR VS. CWT (223 ITR 480) HAS HELD AS UNDER: APPELLANT BY NONE RESPONDENT BY MS. ASHIMA NEB, SR. DR DATE OF HEARING 29.11.2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 30.11.2018 2 ITA NO. 3202/DEL/2015 '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. ' 5. SIMILARLY, HON'BLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF NEW DIWAN OIL MILLS VS. CIT (2008) 296 ITR 495) RETURNED THE REFERENCE UNANSWE RED SINCE THE ASSESSEE REMAINED ABSENT AND THERE WAS NOT ANY ASSISTANCE FROM THE ASSESSEE. 6. THEIR LORDSHIPS OF HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. B. BHATTACHARGEE & ANOTHER (118 ITR 461 AT PAGE 477 - 478) HELD THAT THE APPEAL DOES NOT MEAN, MER E FILING OF THE MEMO OF APPEAL BUT EFFECTIVELY PURSUING THE SAME. 7. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE VIEW TAKEN IN THE CASES 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 WOULD BE AT LIBERTY TO PRAY FOR A RECALL OF THIS ORDER BY MOVING AN APPROPRIATE PETITION AND ALSO BY TAKING APPROPRIATE ACTION TO CORRECT THE DEFECTS , IF ANY, POINTED OUT. THE CO - ORDINATE BENCH CONSIDERING THE PETITION, IF SO SATISFIE D WITH THE EXPLANATION AND THE ACTIONS OF CURING THE DEFECTS, MAY RECALL THIS ORDER. 8. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED FOR NON - PROSECUTION. ORDER IS PRONOUN CED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 3 0 T H NOVEMBER , 201 8 . S D / - S D / - H.S. SIDHU O.P. KANT JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 3 0 T H NOVEMBER , 201 8 . RK / - COPY FORWARDED TO: 1 . APPELLANT 2 . RESPONDENT 3 . CIT 4 . CIT(A) 5 . DR ASST. REGISTRAR, ITAT, NEW DELHI