Dr. Satvir Singh Mann, Gurgaon V. ITO, Gurgaon

ITA 360/DEL/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 96901 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 year(s) 6 month(s) 10 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 04-08-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Next Hearing Date: 21-06-2017
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 25-01-2010
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SURJIT SINGH

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH : G : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R.S. SYAL, AM AND SHRI A.T. VARKEY, JM ITA NO.360/DEL/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2004-05 SATVIR SINGH MANN, S/O SHRI RAJ SINGH MANN, C/O 606, SECTOR-14, GURGAON. PAN : AJJPM3241R VS. ITO, WARD 4, GURGAON. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY: SHRI SURJIT SINGH, SR.DR DATE OF HEARING : 04.08.2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 04.08.2015 ORDER PER SHRI R.S. SYAL, AM: THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT(A) ON 13.11.2009 IN RELATION TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05. 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.360/DEL/2010 2 APPLICATION ALSO. THE NOTICE OF HEARING SENT TO THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN RETURNED UNSERVED. THIS IS A RECALLED MATTER IN WHI CH, EARLIER, THE MATTER WAS DISMISSED IN LIMINE DUE TO THE NON APPEARANCE OF TH E ASSESSEE AT THE TIME OF HEARING. THE APPEAL WAS RESTORED ON A MISCELLANEOU S APPLICATION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. IN THIS ROUND ALSO THE MATTER WAS ADJ OURNED MANY A TIMES INCLUDING ONCE AT THE REQUEST OF THE ASSESSEE. IN T HESE CIRCUMSTANCES, IT APPEARS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED IN PROS ECUTING HIS APPEAL. THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS, THEREFORE, LIABLE TO BE DISMISSED, FOR NON- PROSECUTION. OUR ABOVE VIEW FINDS SUPPORT FROM THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS:- 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 ITA NO.360/DEL/2010 3 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 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 0 4 TH AUGUST, 2015. SD/- SD/- (A.T. VARKEY) (R.S. SYAL) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 04 TH AUGUST, 2015. DK COPY FORWARDED TO 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR DY. REGISTRAR, ITAT, NEW DELHI