Sukriti, New Delhi V. DIT(E), New Delhi

ITA 3976/DEL/2009

• Counselvise Citation: [2010] 136 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8072 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 7 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: 02-03-2010
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 25-09-2009
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: J P JANGI

Judgement Text

I.T.A. NO. 3976,3989 /DEL/2009 1/3 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI, BENCH G BEFORE SHRI A.K.GARODIA, ACCOUTANT MEMBER AND SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.3976, 3989 /DEL/2009 (ASSESSMENT YEAR) M/S. SUKRITI, VS. DIT (EXEMPTION) 1799, GIANI BAZAR, DELHI KOTLA MUBARAKPUR, NEW DELHI-110 092 (APPELLANTS) (RESPONDENTS) PAN / GIR NO. AAHTS6762Q APPELLANT BY: NONE RESPONDENT BY: SHRI J P JANGI, SR. DR ORDER PER GEORGE MATHAN, JM: 1. THESE APPEALS BY THE ASSESSEE HAVE BEEN PREFERRE D AGAINST THE ORDER OF DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), N EW DELHI DATED 24.07.2009. 2. THIS CASE WAS LISTED FOR HEARING BEFORE THE TRIB UNAL ON 02.03.2010 AND THE NOTICE OF HEARING WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE BY COURIER SERVICE ON 04.01.2010 AT THE AD DRESS GIVEN IN FORM NO.36 OF THE MEMO OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE, WHICH HAS NOT RETURNED BY THE POSTAL AUTH ORITIES UNDELIVERED. NO CHANGE OF ADDRESS HAS BEEN INFORME D BY I.T.A. NO. 3976,3989 /DEL/2009 2/3 THE ASSESSEE AS PER RECORDS. BUT TODAY, I.E. ON 0 2.03.2010, WHEN THE CASE WAS CALLED ON BOARD, NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE NOR ANY REQUEST FOR ADJOURNM ENT HAS BEEN FILED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. IT SEEMS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED IN PROSECUTING HIS APPEALS HENCE, TH E APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE LIABLE TO BE DISMISSED, F OR NON- PROSECUTION. OUR ABOVE VIEW FINDS SUPPORT FROM THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS:- 1. IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. B.N. BHATTACHARGEE AND AN OTHER, REPORTED IN 118 ITR 461 [RELEVANT PAGES 477 & 478], WHEREIN THEIR LORDSHIPS HAVE HELD THAT:- THE APPEAL DOES NOT MEAN MERELY FILING OF THE APPEAL BUT EFFECTIVELY PURSUING IT. 2. IN THE CASE OF ESTATE OF LATE TUKOJIRAO HOLKAR V S. CWT; 223 ITR 480 (M.P.) WHILE DISMISSING THE REFERENCE M ADE AT THE INSTANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IN DEFAULT MADE FOL LOWING OBSERVATION IN THEIR 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 REFERENCE, THE COURT IS NOT BOUND TO ANSWER THE REFERENCE. 3. IN THE CASE OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX VS. MU LTIPLAN INDIA (P.) LTD.; 38 ITD 320 (DEL.), THE APPEAL FILE D BY THE REVENUE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL, WHICH WAS FIXED FOR HE ARING. BUT ON THE DATE OF HEARING NOBODY REPRESENTED THE REVENUE/APPELLANT NOR ANY COMMUNICATION FOR ADJOURN MENT I.T.A. NO. 3976,3989 /DEL/2009 3/3 WAS RECEIVED. THERE WAS NO COMMUNICATION OR INFORMATION AS TO WHY THE REVENUE CHOSE TO REMAIN A BSENT ON THAT DATE. THE TRIBUNAL ON THE BASIS OF INHEREN T POWERS, TREATED THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE AS UNADMITT ED IN VIEW OF THE PROVISION OF RULE 19 OF THE APPELLATE R ULES, 1963. 4. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEALS FILED BY THE A SSESSEE, ARE DISMISSED FOR NON-PROSECUTION. 5. THIS DECISION WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT O N 02 ND MAR., 2010. SD./- SD./- (A.K.GARODIA) (GEORGE MATHAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED:02 ND MAR., 2010 SP. COPY FORWARDED TO 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT TRUE COPY: BY ORDER 4. CIT(A) 5. DR DY. REGISTRAR, ITAT, NEW DELHI