Sh. Satish Kumar, New Delhi V. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 3536/DEL/2014

• Counselvise Citation: 353620114 RSA 2014
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 3 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-09-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Next Hearing Date: 22-02-2017
• Assessment Year: 2003-2004
• Appeal Filed On: 12-06-2014
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S L ANURAGI

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH : SMC : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R.S. SYAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.3536/DEL/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2003-04 SATISH KUMAR, 1170, KUCHA MAHAJANI, CHANDNI CHOWK, NEW DELHI 110 006. PAN : AAEPK9645B VS. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-12, NEW DELHI. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY: SHRI S.L. ANURAGI, SR.DR DATE OF HEARING : 28.09.2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 28.09.2015 ORDER THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT(A) ON 25.02.2014 IN RELATION TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04. 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 APPLICATION ALSO. THE NOTICE OF HEARING SENT TO THE ASSESSEE TO THE ADDRESSEE ITA NO.3536/DEL/2014 2 GIVEN AT COLUMN NO.10 OF FORM 36 HAS BEEN RETURNED BY THE POSTAL AUTHORITIES WITH THE REMARKS WITHOUT NAME OF THE F IRM AND FLOOR NUMBER CANNOT KNOW, SO, RETURNED. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FU RNISHED ANY NEW ADDRESS TO WHICH NOTICE OF HEARING COULD BE SENT. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, IT APPEARS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED IN PROSECUTING HIS APPEAL. THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS, THEREFORE, LIABLE TO BE DISMISS ED, FOR NON-PROSECUTION. OUR ABOVE VIEW FINDS SUPPORT FROM THE FOLLOWING DEC ISIONS:- 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 ITA NO.3536/DEL/2014 3 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 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 2 8 TH SEPTEMBER, 2015. SD/- (R.S. SYAL) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 28 TH SEPTEMBER, 2015. DK COPY FORWARDED TO 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR DY. REGISTRAR, ITAT, NEW DELHI