Sh. Subhash, Rohtak V. ITO, Rohtak

ITA 3643/DEL/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 91497 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-07-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC 1
• Next Hearing Date: 31-07-2015
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 05-06-2015
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: OM PRAKASH MEENA

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH : SMC - 1 : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R.S. SYAL, A CCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 3643 /DEL/20 15 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 200 8 - 09 SUBHASH C/O SH. OM PRAKASH (ANWALY WALE) NEAR BACK OF NITANAD SCHOOL, RAM GOPAL COLONY, ROHTA K - 124001 (HARYANA) PAN : A HKPS 5032 R VS. ITO, WARD - I, INCOME TAX OFFICE, ROHTAK 124001 (HARYANA) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY: SHRI OM PRAKASH MEENA, SR. D.R. DATE OF HEARING: 31.07.2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 31.07.2015 ORDER THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT(A) ON 24 .0 4 .20 15 IN RELATION TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008 - 09 . 2. WHEN THE MATTER WAS CALLED UP FOR HEARING TODAY, NO ONE HAS APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED ANY ADJOURNMENT APPLICATION ALSO. THE NOTICE OF HEARING SENT TO THE ASSESSEE ITA NO 3643 /DEL/1 5 2 HAS NOT BEEN RETURNED UNSERVED . IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, IT APPEARS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED IN PROSECUTING ITS APPEAL. THE A PPEAL 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, WHEREIN THEIR LORDSHIPS HAVE HELD: THE APPEAL DOES NOT M EAN MERELY FILING OF THE APPEAL BUT EFFECTIVELY PURSUING IT. 2 . ESTATE OF LATE TUKOJIRAO HOLKAR VS. CWT , 223 ITR 480 (M.P.), WHEREIN, WHILE DISMISSING THE REFERENCE MADE AT THE INSTANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IN DEFAULT, THEIR LORDSHIPS MADE THE FOLLOWING OBSERV ATION: - IF THE PARTY, AT WHOSE INSTANCE THE REFERENCE IS MADE, 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 OF HEARING NOBODY REPRESENTED THE REVENUE/APPELLANT NOR ANY COMMUNICATION FOR ADJOURNMENT WAS RECEIVED. THERE WAS NO COMMUNICATI ON OR INFORMATION AS TO WHY THE REVENUE CHOSE TO REMAIN ABSENT ON THAT DATE. THE TRIBUNAL ON THE BASIS OF ITA NO 3643 /DEL/1 5 3 INHERENT POWERS, TREATED THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE AS UNADMITTED IN VIEW OF THE PROVISION OF RULE 19 OF THE INCOME - TAX ( APPELLATE TRIBUNAL) RUL ES, 1963. 3. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED FOR NON - PROSECUTION. THE DECISION WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 31 ST JULY , 201 5 . SD/ - (R.S. SYAL) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 31 ST JULY, 2015 AKS COPY FORWARDED TO 1 . APPELLANT 2 . RESPONDENT 3 . CIT 4 . CIT(A) 5 . DR DY. REGISTRAR, ITAT, NEW DELHI