Smt Anju Goel, Delhi V. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 3890/DEL/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7190 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 1 month(s) 10 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 07-09-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 06-09-2016
• Assessment Year: 2002-2003
• Appeal Filed On: 27-07-2012
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S K JAIN

Judgement Text

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH A : NEW DELHI BEFORE SMT DIVA SINGH , JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I TA NO . 3890/DEL/2012 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2002 - 03 ) ANJU GOEL, 74/1/28. RAJDHANI PARK, ROHTAK ROAD, NANGLOI, DELHI PAN:AAPPG5199K VS. ITO, WARD - 25(4), NEW DELHI (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : NONE REVENUE BY: SH. SK JAIN, DR DATE OF HEARING 06/09/ 2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 07 / 0 9 /2016 O R D E R PER PRASHANT MAHARISHI , A . M . 1. THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD CIT(A) - XVI, NEW DELHI DATED 30.03.2012 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002 - 03. 2. TODAY, I.E. ON 06/09/ 2016 WHEN THIS CASE WAS CALLED ON BOARD, NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE NOR ANY REQUEST FOR ADJOURNMENT HAS BEEN FILED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. IT SEEMS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED IN PROSECUTING THE APPEAL; HENCE, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS LIABLE TO BE UN - ADMITTED AND DISMISSED FOR NON - PROSECUTION. IN OUR ABOVE VIEW, WE FIND SUPPOR T FROM THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS: - (I). IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. B.N. BHATTACHARGEE & ANOTHER 118 ITR 461 (RELEVANT PAGES 477 & 478) WHEREIN THEIR LORDSHIPS HAVE HELD THAT THE APPEAL DOES NOT MEAN MERELY FILING OF APPEAL BUT EFFECTIVELY PURSUING IT. (II). IN THE CASE OF ESTATE OF LATE TUKOJI RAO HOLKER VS. CWT 223 ITR 480 (MP) WHILE DISMISSING THE REFERENCE MADE AT THE INSTANCE OF ASSESSEE IN DEFAULT MADE FOLLOWING OBSERVATIONS IN THEIR ORDER: 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 PAPER BOOKS SO AS TO ENABLE HEARING OF THE REFERENCE, THIS COURT IS NOT BOUND TO ANSWER THE REFERENCE. PAGE 2 OF 2 (III). IN THE CAS E OF CIT VS. MULTIPLAN INDIA PVT. LTD. 38 ITD 320 (DEL). THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL WHICH WAS FIXED FOR HEARING BUT ON THE DATE OF HEARING NOBODY REPRESENTED THE REVENUE / APPLICANT, NOR ANY COMMUNICATION FOR ADJOURNMENT WAS RECEIV ED. THERE WAS NO COMMUNICATION OR INFORMATION AS TO WHY REVENUE CHOOSE TO REMAIN ABSENT ON THAT DATE. THE TRIBUNAL ON THE BASIS OF INHERENT POWER TREATED THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE AS UN - ADMITTED IN VIEW OF RULE 19 OF THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RULES, 196 3. 3. THEREFORE, KEEPING IN VIEW THE ABOVE, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED FOR NON - PROSECUTION. THE ASSESSEE, IF SO ADVISED, SHALL BE FREE TO MOVE THIS TRIBUNAL PRAYING FOR RECALLING OF THIS ORDER AND EXPLAINING THE REASONS FOR NON - COMPLIANCE E TC. AND IF THE BENCH IS SO SATISFIED ABOUT THE REASONS ETC, THEN THIS ORDER SHALL BE RECALLED. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL S FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 0 7 / 0 9 /2016 . - S D / - - S D / - ( DIVA SINGH ) (PRASHANT MAHARISHI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 0 7 / 0 9 / 2016 A K KEOT COPY FORWARDED TO 1. APPLICANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR:ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, NEW DELHI