M/s Akulk Woolen Ltd., Delhi V. ACIT, Ghaziabad

ITA 3687/DEL/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 91459 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 12 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-07-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 23-07-2015
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 16-07-2012
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL

Judgement Text

ITA NO. 3684/DEL/2012 TO 3687/DEL/2012 ASSTT.YEARS: 2004-05, 05-06, 06-07 & 08-09 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH `A NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI N.K. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI CHANDRA MOHAN GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A.NO.3684/DEL/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2004-05 I.T.A.NO.3685/DEL/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2005-06 I.T.A.NO.3686/DEL/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006-07 I.T.A.NO.3687/DEL/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008-09 M/S AKULK WOOLEN LTD., VS CIT(A PPEALS), 308, CHHBRA COMPLEX, MUZAFFARNAGAR. 8, VER SAVARKAR BLOCK, SHAKARPUR, DELHI. (PAN: AACL1569N) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: NONE RESPONDENT BY : SHRI JAISWAL, DR O R D E R PER BENCH THE ABOVE APPEALS HAVE BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE A GAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A), MUZAFFARNAGAR DATED 29.2.2012 PERTAINING TO AY 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07 AND 2008-09. ITA NO. 3684/DEL/2012 TO 3687/DEL/2012 ASSTT.YEARS: 2004-05, 05-06, 06-07 & 08-09 2 2. THESE APPEALS WERE INITIALLY FIXED FOR HEARING O N 23.1.2013 BUT ON THE FIXED DATE, HEARING WAS ADJOURNED TO 7.5.2013 AT TH E REQUEST OF ASSESSEES COUNSEL. THEREAFTER TOO, AFTER SEVERAL ADJOURNMENT S HAD BEEN SOUGHT BY THE COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE, THE APPEALS WERE FIXED FOR HEARING ON 23.7.2015 AND BOTH PARTIES WERE INFORMED. TODAY ON 23.7.2015, NO ONE WAS PRESENT ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE NOR ANY REQUEST FOR ADJOURNM ENT WAS PLACED BEFORE THE BENCH. SHRI JAISWAL, LD. DR APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE AT THE TIME OF HEARING. 3. IT APPEARS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED I N GETTING THE APPEALS PROSECUTED. HONBLE MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF TUKOJIRAO HOLKAR VS CWT 223 ITR 480 (MP) , WHILE DISMISSING THE REFERENCE MADE AT THE INSTANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IN D EFAULT, MADE THE FOLLOWING OBSERVATIONS:- IF THE PARTY AT WHOSE INSTANCE, THE REFERENCE IS MADE, FAILS TO APPEAR AT THE HEARING OR FAILS IN TA KING STEPS FOR PREPARATION OF THE PAPER BOOKS SO AS TO E NABLE HEARING 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 A PPEAL HAD BEEN ADMITTED. ITA NO. 3684/DEL/2012 TO 3687/DEL/2012 ASSTT.YEARS: 2004-05, 05-06, 06-07 & 08-09 3 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 REASONS MIGHT ALSO BE A DESIRE OR ABSENCE OF NEED TO PROSECUTE TH E APPEAL OR LIABILITY TO ASSIST THE TRIBUNAL IN A PROPER MANNER OR TO TAKE B ENEFIT OF VAGARIES OF LAW. 5. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE PRECEDENTS, THE APPEA LS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE TREATED AS UN-ADMITTED AND DISMISSED I N 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 MA TTER MAY BE RECALLED FOR THE PURPOSE OF ADJUDICATION OF THE APPEAL. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED FOR NON- PROSECUTION. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 28.07.2015. SD/- SD/- (N.K. SAINI) (CHANDRAMOHAN GARG) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DT. 28TH JULY, 2015 GS COPY FORWARDED TO:- 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. C.I.T.(A) 4. C.I.T. 5. DR BY ORDER ASSTT.REGISTRAR