M/s Tanuj Enterprises, New Delhi V. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 3576/DEL/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 65921 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 4 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 06-12-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: H
• Next Hearing Date: 19-11-2013
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 18-07-2011
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MRS PRISCILLA SINGSIT

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH H : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI JOGINDER SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B.C.MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.3576/DEL/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2005-06 M/S TANUJ ENTERPRISES, A-131, VISHAL ENCLAVE, NEW DELHI. PAN : AACFT2863N. VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-26(1), NEW DELHI. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : NONE. RESPONDENT BY : MRS. PRISCILLA SINGSIT, SR.DR. ORDER PER B.C.MEENA, AM : THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LEAR NED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS), NEW DELHI DATED 28 MARCH, 2011 FOR THE AY 2005-06 ON THE GROUNDS AS STATED IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. 2. DURING HEARING OF THIS APPEAL, NOBODY WAS PRESENT FOR THE ASSESSE E WHEREAS MRS.PRISCILLA SINGSIT, LEARNED SR. DR REPRESENTED THE DEPARTMENT. 2 ITA-3576/DEL/2011 MRS.SINGSIT CONTENDED THAT ON 4.7.2012, THE APPEAL WAS ADJOURNED AT THE REQUEST OF THE ASSESSEE AND TODAY, NOBODY IS PRESENT FOR THE ASSESSEE, THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE IS NOT SERIOUS IN PURSUING THE APPEAL, CONSEQUEN TLY, THE APPEAL MAY BE DISMISSED. 3. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE ASSERTION MADE BY THE LEARNED SR.DR AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. WITHOUT GOING INTO MU CH DELIBERATION, WE FIND THAT THIS APPEAL WAS FIXED FOR HEARING ON VARIOUS DATES AND FINALLY, ON 4.7.2012, THE APPEAL WAS ADJOURNED AT THE R EQUEST OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE AS IS EVIDENT FROM THE ORDER SHEET ENTRY DATED 4.7.2012. TODAY AT THE TIME OF HEARING, THE ASSESSEE NEI THER PRESENTED ITSELF NOR MOVED ANY ADJOURNMENT PETITION. IT SEEMS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS MERELY FILED THE APPEAL AND IS NOT SERIOUS IN PURSUING THE SAME . UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, SINCE THE ASSESSEE NEITHER REPRESENTED ITSELF NOR MOV ED ADJOURNMENT PETITION, WE ARE CONSTRAINED TO DISMISS THE APPEAL OF T HE ASSESSEE FOR NON-PROSECUTION. OUR DECISION IS BASED UPON THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. MULTIPLAN (INDIA) PVT. LTD., 38 ITD 320 (DEL); AND LATE TUKOJI RAO HOLKAR, 223 ITR 480 (MP). THE ASSESSEE, IF SO ADVISED, SHALL BE FR EE TO MOVE THIS TRIBUNAL PRAYING FOR RECALLING OF THIS ORDER AND EXPLAINING TH E REASONS FOR NON-APPEARANCE ETC. AND IF THE BENCH IS SO SATISFIED ABOUT THE REASONS SO FURNISHED, THEN THIS ORDER SHALL BE RECALLED. 3 ITA-3576/DEL/2011 IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED FOR NON- PROSECUTION. THIS ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT IN THE PRESENCE OF LEARN ED SR.DR AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE HEARING ON 6 DECEMBER, 2012. SD/- SD/- (JOGINDER SINGH) (B.C.MEENA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED : 06.12.2012 VK. COPY FORWARDED TO: - 1. APPELLANT : M/S TANUJ ENTERPRISES, A-131, VISHAL ENCLAVE, NEW DELHI. 2. RESPONDENT : INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-26(1), NEW DELHI. 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR