G. S. Mayawala, New Delhi V. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 3970/DEL/2010

• Counselvise Citation: 397020114 RSA 2010
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 1 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-09-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 11-07-2016
• Assessment Year: 2002-2003
• Appeal Filed On: 26-08-2010
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: Y KAKKAR

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH C, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI S.V. MEHROTRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI A.D. JAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 3970/DEL/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2002-03 G.S. MAYAWALA, VS. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, 1503, 2 ND FLOOR, WARD 29(3), BHAGIRATH PLACE, C.R. BLDG., NEW DELHI. NEW DELHI. PAN NO. AAMPM9387N (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY : MS. Y. KAKKAR, SR. DR ORDER PER A.D. JAIN, J.M. THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAI NST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) DATED 30.06.2010 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03 . 2. THE APPEAL WAS LISTED FOR HEARING ON VARIOUS DAT ES AND FINALLY ADJOURNED FOR TODAY VIZ. 25 TH SEPTEMBER, 2012 AS PER ASSESSEES REPRESENTATIVES ADJOURNMENT APPLICATION DATED 8 TH MAY, 2012. HOWEVER, NEITHER ANYONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESEE NO R ANY ADJOURNMENT APPLICATION WAS FILED ON BEHALF OF ASSESSEE. IT AP PEARS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED IN PROSECUTING THE APPEAL. HENCE, T HE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS LIABLE TO BE DISMISSED, FOR NON-PROSECU TION, IN VIEW OF FOLLOWING DECISIONS: 1. IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. B.N. BHATTACHARGEE AND ANOT HER, REPORTED IN 118 ITR 461 [RELEVANT PAGES 477 & 478] WHEREIN THEIR LO RDSHIPS HAVE HELD THAT: THE APPEAL DOES NOT MEAN MERELY FILING OF THE APPE AL BUT EFFECTIVELY PURSUING IT. ITA NO. 3970/D/2010 2 2. IN THE CASE OF ESTATE OF LATE TUKOJIRAO HOLKAR VS. CWT; 223 ITR 480 (M.P.) WHILE DISMISSING THE REFERENCE MADE AT THE I NSTANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IN DEFAULT MADE FOLLOWING OBSERVATION IN T HEIR ORDER: 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 PAPER BOOKS SO AS TO ENABLE HEARING OF THE REFE RENCE, THE COURT IS NOT BOUND TO ANSWER THE REFERENCE. 3. IN THE CASE OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX VS. MULTI PLAN INDIA (P) LTD.; 38 ITD 320 (DEL), THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE B EFORE THE TRIBUNAL, WHICH WAS FIXED FOR HEARING. BUT ON THE DATE OF HE ARING 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 ABSENT ON THA T DATE. THE TRIBUNAL ON THE BASIS OF INHERENT POWERS, TREATED THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE AS UN-ADMITTED IN VIEW OF THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 19 OF THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RULES, 1963. 3. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED FOR NON- PROSECUTION. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 27/ 09/2012 SD/- SD/- (S.V. MEHROTRA) (A.D . JAIN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER J UDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 27/09/12 *KAVITA COPY FORWARDED TO: - 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT TRUE COPY BY ORDER, DEPUTY REGISTRAR