M/s. Ganpati Hightech Construction, Muzaffarnagar V. ITO, Muzaffarnagar

ITA 4042/DEL/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 53052 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 28 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 03-11-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: I
• Next Hearing Date: 03-11-2011
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 05-09-2011
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: A K MONGA
• Assessee Lawyers: N O N E

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL [ DELHI BENCH I DELHI ] BEFORE MS. DIVA SINGH, JM AND SHRI K. D. RANJAN , AM I. T. APPEAL NO. 4042 (DEL) OF 2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008-09. M/S. GANPATI HIGHTECH CONSTRUCTION, THE INC OME-TAX OFFICER, 28 GANGA RAM PURA, VS. W A R D : 1(1) , MUZAFFAR NAGAR [U.P.] MUZAFFAR NAGAR. P A N / G I R NO. AAI FG 3302 M. ( APPELLANT ) ( RESPONDENT ) ASSESSEE BY : N O N E; DEPARTMENT BY : SHRI A. K. MONGA, SR. D. R. ; O R D E R. PER K. D. RANJAN, AM : THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 20 08-09 ARISES OUT OF ORDER OF THE LD. CIT (APPEALS), MUZAFFAR NAGAR. 2. THIS APPEAL WAS FIXED FOR HEARING ON 03 RD NOVEMBER, 2011 AND THIS DATE WAS NOTED AT THE TIME OF FILING OF THE APPEAL ON 05 TH SEPTEMBER, 2011. ON 03/11/2011, WHEN THE CASE WAS CALLED FOR HEARING, NOBODY APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSES SEE AT THE TIME OF HEARING AND NOR WAS ANY APPLICATION FOR ADJOURNMENT RECEIVED. IT APPEARS T HAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED IN GETTING THE APPEAL PROSECUTED. HON'BLE MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COU RT IN THE CASE OF TUKOJIRAO HOLKAR VS. CWT 223 ITR 480 (MP) WHILE DISMISSING THE REFERENCE MADE AT THE INSTANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IN DEFAULT MADE THE FOLLOWING OBSERVATIONS: 2 I. T. APPEAL NO. 4042 (DEL) OF 2011 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 S O AS TO ENABLE HEARING OF THE REFERENCE, THE COURT IS NOT BOUND TO ANSWER THE REFERENCE. 3. 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 NOTI CE COULD NOT BY ITSELF MEAN THAT THE APPEAL HAD BEEN ADMITTED. THIS RULE ONLY CLARIFIES THE POSITIO N. 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 THE APPEAL OR LIABILIT Y TO ASSIST THE TRIBUNAL IN A PROPER MANNER OR TO TAKE BENEFIT OF VAGARIES OF LAW. 4. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE PRECEDENTS THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS TREATED AS UN-ADMITTED AND DISMISSED IN LIMINE. WE MAY LIKE T O CLARIFY THAT SUBSEQUENTLY IF THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINS THE REASONS FOR NON-APPEARANCE AND IF THE BENCH IS SO SATISFIED, THE MATTER MAY BE RECALLED FOR THE PURPOSE OF ADJUDICATION OF THE APP EAL. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED FOR NON-PROSECUTION. THE ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON : 03 RD NOVEMBER, 2011. SD/- SD/- [ DIVA SINGH ] [ K. D. RANJAN ] JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED : 03 RD NOVEMBER, 2011. *MEHTA * COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : - 1. APPELLANT. 2. RESPONDENT. 3. CIT, 4. CIT (APPEALS), 5. DR, ITAT, NEW DELHI. TRUE COPY. BY ORDER. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT. 3 I. T. APPEAL NO. 4042 (DEL) OF 2011 4 I. T. APPEAL NO. 4042 (DEL) OF 2011