H.M. Consultants Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi V. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 3374/DEL/2008

• Counselvise Citation: [2009] 115 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2222 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 1 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 15-12-2009
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 15-04-2013
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 12-11-2008
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MONA MOHANTY

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES: C NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI D.R.SINGH, JM AND SHRI K.D. RANJAN, AM ITA NO. 3374/DEL/2008 A.Y. 2004-05 M/S H.M.CONSULTANT P.LTD. VS. ITO, WARD 12(4) 106, ASHOKA PLACE NEW D ELHI 877 EAST PARK ROAD KAROL BAGH NEW DELHI (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY : SMT.MONA MOHANTY, D.R. O R D E R PER D.R. SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER THIS CASE HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESEE AGAINST T HE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) DATED 25.8.2008 PASSED IN APPEAL NO. 67/07-0 8 PERTAINING TO A.Y. 2004-05. 2. ON THE LAST DATE OF HEARING I.E. 27.10.2009, AT THE REQUEST OF THE LD.D.R., THIS CASE WAS ADJOURNED FOR 15.12.2009 IN THE PRESENCE OF BOTH THE PARTIES. TODAY I.E. ON 15.12.2009 WHEN THE CAS E WAS CALLED ON BOARD, NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE, NOR ANY RE QUEST FOR ADJOURNMENT IS RECEIVED. IT SEEMS THAT THE ASSESEE IS NOT INTERESTED IN PROSECUTING THE APPEAL, HENCE, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESEE IS LIABLE TO 2 BE TREATED AS UNADMITTED AND DISMISSED FOR NON-PROS ECUTION. IN OUR ABOVE VIEW, WE FIND SUPPORT FROM THE FOLLOWING DECI SIONS. 1. IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. B.N. BHATTACHARGEE AND ANOTH ER, REPORTED IN 118 ITR 461 [RELEVANT PAGES 477 & 478] WHEREIN THEI R LORDSHIPS 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 I NSTANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IN DEFAULT MADE FOLLOWING OBSERVATION IN T HEIR 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 HEAR ING OF THE REFERENCE, 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 REV ENUE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL, WHICH WAS FIXED FOR HEARING. BUT ON THE DATE OF HEARING NOBODY REPRESENTED THE REVENUE/APPELLANT NOR ANY CO MMUNICATION FOR ADJOURNMENT WAS RECEIVED. THERE WAS NO COMMUNI CATION OR INFORMATION AS TO WHY THE REVENUE CHOSE TO REMAIN A BSENT ON THAT DATE. THE TRIBUNAL ON THE BASIS OF INHERENT POWERS , TREATED THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE AS UN-ADMITTED IN VIEW OF THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 19 OF THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RUL ES, 1963. 4. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THESE DECISIONS (SUPRA), THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESEE IS TREATED AS UNADMITTED AND DISMISSED FOR NON PROSECUTION. 4.1 WE MAY LIKE TO CLARIFY THAT SUBSEQUENTLY IF TH E ASSESSEE MOVES AN APPROPRIATE APPLICATION FOR RECALL OF THE ORDER AND EXPLAIN THE REASONS FOR 3 NON APPEARANCE AND IF THE BENCH IS SO SATISFIED, TH E ORDER MAY BE RECALLED FOR THE PURPOSE OF ADJUDICATION OF THE APP EAL. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESE E IS DISMISSED FOR NON PROSECUTION. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 15.12.2009 IMMEDI ATELY AFTER CONCLUSION OF THE HEARING. (K.D.RANJAN) (D.R.SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMB ER DATED: 15TH DECEMBER, 2009 *MANGA COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT; 2.RESPONDENT; 3.CIT; 4.CIT (A); 5.DR 6.GUARD FILE BY ORDER DY. REGISTRAR // TR UE COPY //