M/s. S.K.R. Food Products, Uttrakhand V. ITO, Kashipur

ITA 3972/DEL/2009

• Counselvise Citation: [2010] 136 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8065 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 8 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 02-03-2010
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Next Hearing Date: 08-11-2010
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 24-09-2009
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: J P JANGID

Judgement Text

I.T.A. NO3972 /DEL/09 1/2 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH G NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI A.K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. NO.3972 /DEL/2009 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006-07 SKR FOOD PRODUCTS, ITO, KASHIPUR ROAD, GADARPUR, WARD-3, UDHAM SINGH NASGAR, KASHIPUR. UTTRAKHAND. V. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY : SHRI J.P. JANGID, SR. DR. ORDER PER A.K. GARODIA, AM: THIS IS AN ASSESSEE'S APPEAL DIRECTED AGAINST THE O RDER OF LD CIT, II, DEHRADUN DATED 13.7.2009 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-0 7. NOTICE OF HEARING WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE AND IT APPEARS THAT NOTICE W AS SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE AT THE ADDRESS MENTIONED IN FORM NO.36 BECAUSE THE NOT ICE HAS NOT COME BACK UNSERVED.. IN SPITE OF THIS, NONE APPEARED ON BEHAL F OF THE ASSESSEE. ON THIS DATE OF HEARING I.E. 2.3.2010, THERE IS NO REQUEST FOR ADJOURNMENT AND UNDER THESE FACTS, IT APPEARS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT IN TERESTED IN GETTING THE APPEAL PROSECUTED. HON'BLE MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT IN T HE CASE OF TUKOJIRAO HOLKAR V. CWT 223 ITR 480 (MP) WHILE DISMISSING THE REFERE NCE MADE AT THE INSTANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IN DEFAULT MADE THE FOLLOWING OBSERVAT IONS: 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 BOOK SO AS TO . I.T.A. NO.3972/DEL/09 2/2 ENABLE HEARING OF THE REFERENCE, THE COURT IS NOT B OUND TO ANSWER THE REFERENCE. 2. ITAT DELHI BENCH D IN THE CASE OF CIT V. MULTI PLAN INDIA (P) LTD. OBSERVED THAT THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 19 STATE THAT MERE ISSUE OF NOTICE COULD NOT BY ITSELF MEAN THAT THE APPEAL HAD BEEN ADMITTED. T HIS RULE ONLY CLARIFIES THE POSITION. THERE MIGHT BE VARIOUS REASONS WITH THE A PPELLANT TO REMAIN ABSENT AT THE TIME OF HEARING. ONE OF THE REASONS MIGHT ALSO BE A DESIRE OR ABSENCE OF NEED TO PROSECUTE THE APPEAL OR LIABILITY TO ASSIST THE TRIBUNAL IN A PROPER MANNER OR TO TAKE BENEFIT OF VAGARIES OF LAW. 3. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE PRECEDENTS, THE APPEA L FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS TREATED AS UN-ADMITTED AND DISMISSED IN LIMINE. WE MAY LIKE TO CLARIFY THAT SUBSEQUENTLY IF THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINS THE REASONS F OR NON APPEARANCE AND IF THE BENCH IS SO SATISFIED, THE MATTER MAY BE RECALLED F OR THE PURPOSE OF ADJUDICATION OF THE APPEAL. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED FOR NON P ROSECUTION. 5. PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON THE DATE OF HEARING I.E. 2.3.2010. SD/- SD/- (GEORGE MATHAN) (A.K. GARODIA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DT. 02.3.2010. HMS COPY FORWARDED TO:- 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT 4. THE CIT (A)-, NEW DELHI. 5. THE DR, ITAT, LOKNAYAK BHAWAN, KHAN MARKET, NEW DELHI. TRUE COPY. BY ORDER (ITAT, NEW DELHI).