Daya Jain, New Delhi V. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 3473/DEL/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 97101 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 2 month(s) 22 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 01-09-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC 2
• Next Hearing Date: 01-09-2015
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 09-06-2014
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES : B NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, J UDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI T.S. KAPOOR, ACCOUNTA NT MEMBER ITA NO. 3473/DEL/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2005-06 DAYA JAIN VS. ITO 158, RAJDHANI ENCLAVE WARD 25(1) PITAMPURA NEW DELHI. NEW DELHI 110 034 (PAN ADRPJ4490L) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY :- NONE DEPARTMENT BY:- SHRI SUJIT KUMAR , SR. DR O R D E R PER T.S. KAPOOR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE DIRECTED AG AINST THE ORDER OF LD.CIT(A),XXIV, NEW DELHI DT. 12.2.2014 FOR THE ASS ESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 CONFIRMING AN ASSESSMENT ORDER CONFIRMING PENALTY U /S 271(1)(C) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. HOWEVER, AT THE TIME OF HEARING NO ONE WAS PRESENT ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE NOR ANY APPLICATION FOR ADJOURNMENT WA S ON RECORD. THEREFORE THE CASE WAS PASSED OVER. IN THE SECOND ROUND ALSO NOBO DY APPEARED ON BEHALF OF ASSESSEE. WE FIND THAT NOTICE INTIMATING THE DATE O F HEARING WAS DULY SERVED ON 2 THE ASSESSEE. IN THESE FACTS WE ARE OF THE VIEW THA T THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT SEEM TO BE INTERESTED IN PURSUING ITS APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. HONBLE MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF TUKOJIRAO HOLKAR VS CWT 223 ITR 480 (MP) , WHILE DISMISSING THE REFERENCE MADE AT THE INSTAN CE OF THE ASSESSEE IN DEFAULT, MADE THE FOLLOWING OBSERVATIONS:- 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 REFERENC E, THE COURT IS NOT BOUND TO ANSWER THE REFERENCE. 2. ITAT DELHI BENCH D IN THE CASE OF CIT VS MULTIPLAN INDIA (P) LTD. 38 ITD 320 OBSERVED THAT THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 19 STATE THAT MERE ISSUE OF NOTICE COULD NOT BY ITSELF MEAN THAT THE APPEAL HAD BEEN A DMITTED. THIS RULE ONLY CLARIFIES THE POSITION. THERE MIGHT BE VARIOUS REAS ONS WITH THE APPELLANT TO REMAIN ABSENT AT THE TIME OF HEARING. ONE OF THE R EASONS MIGHT ALSO BE A DESIRE OR ABSENCE OF NEED TO PROSECUTE THE APPEAL OR LIABI LITY TO ASSIST THE TRIBUNAL IN A PROPER MANNER OR TO TAKE BENEFIT OF VAGARIES OF LAW . 3. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE PRECEDENTS, THE APPEA L FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS TREATED AS UN-ADMITTED AND DISMISSED IN LIMINE. WE MAY LIKE TO CLARIFY THAT SUBSEQUENTLY, IF THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINS THE REASONS FOR NON-APPEARANCE AND IF THE BENCH IS SO SATISFIED, THE MATTER MAY BE RECALLED F OR THE PURPOSE OF ADJUDICATION OF THE APPEAL. 3 4. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED FOR NON- PROSECUTION 5. THIS DECISION WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT O N THE DATE OF HEARING ITSELF I.E. ON 1 ST SEPTEMBER, 2015. SD/- SD/- (C.M. GARG) (T.S. KAPOOR) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCO UNTANT MEMBER DATED: THE 1 ST SEPTEMBER, 2015 VEENA COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER DY. REGISTRAR SL. NO. DESCRIPTION DATE 1. DATE OF DICTATION BY THE AUTHOR 1.9..2015 2. DRAFT PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER 1.9.20 15 3. DRAFT PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER 4. DRAFT APPROVED BY THE SECOND MEMBER 5. DATE OF APPROVED ORDER COMES TO THE SR. PS 6. DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER 7. DATE OF FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK 8. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK 9. DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER 4