Shri Aditya Verma, Dehradun V. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Dehradun

ITA 3398/DEL/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6997 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 11-02-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC 2
• Next Hearing Date: 11-02-2016
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 28-05-2015
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: DEEPAK TIWARI

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH : SMC-2 : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R.S. SYAL, AM AND SHRI KULDIP SINGH, J M ITA NO.3398/DEL/2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008-09 ADITYA VERMA, C/O M/S HEMAND ARORA & CO., CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS, 1, TYAGI ROAD, DEHRADUN. PAN : ADZPV9884H VS. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, DEHRADUN. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY: SHRI DEEPAK TIWARI, SR.DR DATE OF HEARING : 11.02.2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 11.02.2016 ORDER PER SHRI R.S. SYAL, AM: THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT(A) ON 26.03.2015 IN RELATION TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09. 2. WHEN THE MATTER WAS CALLED UP FOR HEARING TOD AY, NO ONE HAS APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FIL ED ANY ADJOURNMENT ITA NO.3398/DEL/2015 2 APPLICATION ALSO. THE NOTICE OF HEARING SENT TO THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN RETURNED UNSERVED. EARLIER, THE MATTER GOT ADJOURNE D MANY A TIMES AT THE REQUEST OF THE ASSESSEES COUNSEL. IN THESE CIRCUM STANCES, IT APPEARS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED IN PROSECUTING HIS APPEA L. THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS, THEREFORE, LIABLE TO BE DISMISSED, FOR NON-PROSECUTION. OUR ABOVE VIEW FINDS SUPPORT FROM THE FOLLOWING DECISIO NS:- 1. CIT VS. B.N. BHATTACHARGEE & ANR., 118 ITR 461, WHE REIN THEIR LORDSHIPS HAVE HELD: THE APPEAL DOES NOT MEAN MERELY FILING OF THE APPE AL BUT EFFECTIVELY PURSUING IT. 2. ESTATE OF LATE TUKOJIRAO HOLKAR VS. CWT, 223 ITR 4 80 (M.P.), WHEREIN, WHILE DISMISSING THE REFERENCE MADE AT THE INSTANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IN DEFAULT, THEIR LORDSHIPS MADE THE FOLLO WING OBSERVATION:- 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 REFERENCE, THE COURT IS NOT BOUND TO ANSWER THE REFERENCE. 3. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX VS. MULTIPLAN INDIA (P. ) LTD, 38 ITD 320 (DEL.),WHEREIN THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL, WAS FIXED FOR HEARING. BUT ON THE DATE O F HEARING 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 A BSENT ON THAT ITA NO.3398/DEL/2015 3 DATE. THE TRIBUNAL ON THE BASIS OF INHERENT POWERS , TREATED THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE AS UNADMITTED IN VIEW O F THE PROVISION OF RULE 19 OF THE INCOME-TAX (APPELLATE TRIBUNAL) R ULES, 1963. 3. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASS ESSEE IS DISMISSED FOR NON- PROSECUTION. THE DECISION WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 1 1 TH FEBRUARY, 2016. SD/- SD/- (KULDIP SINGH) (R.S. SYAL) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 11 TH FEBRUARY, 2016. DK COPY FORWARDED TO 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR DY. REGISTRAR, ITAT, NEW DELHI