Scoplios Security & Manpower P Ltd., Faridabad V. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 3585/DEL/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 90899 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 10 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 15-04-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Next Hearing Date: 08-04-2015
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 04-06-2013
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: B R R KUMAR

Judgement Text

ITA NO. 5884/D/2012 ASSTT.YEAR: 2005-06 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH `G NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R.S. SYAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI CHANDRA MOHAN GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A.NO.3585/DEL/2013 ASSTT.YEAR: 2006-07 SCOPLIOS SECURITY & MANPOWER PVT. LTD., VS INC OME TAX OFFICER, C/O D. LAL CHOPRA & CO., WARD-7(4), B-519, NEHRU GROUND, C.R. BUILDING, FARIDABAD. NEW DELHI. (PAN: AAHCS1896A) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDE NT) APPELLANT BY: NONE RESPONDENT BY : SHRI B.R.R. KUMAR SR. DR DATE OF HEARING: 08.04.2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: O R D E R PER CHANDRA MOHAN GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER THE ABOVE APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGA INST THE ORDER OF CIT(A)-X, NEW DELHI DATED 16.01.2013. 2. THIS APPEAL WAS FIXED FOR HEARING ON 08.04.2015 AND BOTH PARTIES WERE INFORMED. ON THIS DAY, NO ONE WAS PRESENT ON BEHAL F OF THE ASSESSEE NOR ANY REQUEST FOR ADJOURNMENT WAS PLACED BEFORE THE BENCH . SHRI B.R.R. KUMAR, SR. DR APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE AT THE TIME OF HEARING. ITA NO. 5884/D/2012 ASSTT.YEAR: 2005-06 2 3. IT APPEARS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED I N GETTING THE APPEAL PROSECUTED. HONBLE MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF TU KOJIRAO HOLKAR VS CWT 223 ITR 480 (MP) , WHILE DISMISSING THE REFERENCE MADE AT THE INSTANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IN DEFAULT, MADE THE F OLLOWING OBSERVATIONS:- IF THE PARTY AT WHOSE INSTANCE, THE REFERENCE IS MADE, FAILS TO APPEAR AT THE HEARING OR FAILS IN TAKING S TEPS FOR PREPARATION OF THE PAPER BOOKS SO AS TO ENABLE HEAR ING OF THE REFERENCE, THE COURT IS NOT BOUND TO ANSWER THE REFERENCE. 4. 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 ADMITTED. THIS RULE ONLY CLARIFIES THE POSITION. THERE MIGHT BE VARIOUS REASONS 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 . 5. 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. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED FOR NON- PROSECUTION. ITA NO. 5884/D/2012 ASSTT.YEAR: 2005-06 3 ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 15/4/2015 SD/- SD/- (R.S SYAL) (CHANDRAMOHAN GARG) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DT. 15 TH APRIL 2015 GS COPY FORWARDED TO:- 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. C.I.T.(A) 4. C.I.T. 5. DR BY ORDER ASSTT.REGISTRAR