SRM Cotton & Oil Mills, Bhiwani V. CIT, Hisar

ITA 4043/DEL/2011

• Counselvise Citation: 404320114 RSA 2011
• 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: G
• Next Hearing Date: 19-06-2017
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 05-09-2011
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: M VERMA

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES: I NEW DELHI BEFORE SMT. DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI K.D.RANJAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO: 4043/DEL/2011 A.Y. : 2008-2009 SRM COTTON & OIL MILLS VS. CIT, HISAR 8 KM STONE, TOSHAM ROAD BAPORA BHIWANI PAN: AAJFS 5513 M (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : NONE. RESPONDENT BY : SH.M.VERMA, CIT, D.R. O R D E R PER DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER THIS IS THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 28.7.2011 OF CIT, HISAR PERTAINING TO A.Y. 2008-09 ON VARIOUS GROUNDS. 2. HOWEVER, AT THE TIME OF HEARING NO ONE WAS PRESE NT ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. APPEAL WAS PASSED OVER IN THE FIRST ROUND. IN THE SECOND ROUND WHEN IT WAS CALLED ON BOARD AGAIN NO ONE WAS PRESENT, NOR ANY ADJOURNMENT APPLICATION WAS PLACED BEFORE THE BENCH . IN VIEW OF THE PECULIAR FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES WE ARE OF THE VIE W THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED IN PURSUING THE APPEAL, HENCE, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS LIABLE TO BE UNADMITTED/DISMISSED. IN OUR ABOVE VIEW, WE FIND SUPPORT FROM THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS: 1. 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 HEAR ING OF THE REFERENCE, THE COURT IS NOT BOUND TO ANSWER THE REFERENCE. ITA 4043/DEL/11 PAGE OF 2 M/S SRM COTTON & OIL MILLS, BHIWANI A.Y.: 2008-09 2. IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. B.N. BHATTACHARGEE AND ANOTH ER, REPORTED IN 118 ITR 461 [RELEVANT PAGES 477 & 478] WHEREIN THEI R LORDSHIPS HAVE HELD THAT: THE APPEAL DOES NOT MEAN MERELY FILING OF THE APPE AL BUT EFFECTIVELY PURSUING IT. 3. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX VS. MULTIPLAN INDIA (P) LTD.; 38 ITD 320 (DEL 4. LATE MRS.BANU E COWASJI VS CIT, 276 ITR 549 (M. P.) 3. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THESE DECISIONS (SUPRA), THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESEE IS TREATED AS UNADMITTED/DISMISSED FOR NON PERSECUTION. WE MAY LIKE TO CLARIFY THAT SUBSEQUENTLY IF THE ASSESS EE MOVES AN APPROPRIATE APPLICATION FOR RECALL OF THE ORDER AND EXPLAIN THE REASONS FOR NON APPEARANCE AND IF THE BENCH IS SO SATISFIED, TH E ORDER MAY BE RECALLED FOR THE PURPOSE OF ADJUDICATION OF THE APP EAL. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESS EE IS DISMISSED FOR NON PERSECUTION. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 3RD NOVEMBER, 20 11 IMMEDIATELY AFTER CONCLUSION OF THE HEARING. SD/- SD/- (K.D.RANJAN ) (DIVA SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 3 ND NOVEMBER, 2011 *MANGA COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT; 2.RESPONDENT; 3.CIT; 4.CI T(A); 5.DR; 6.GUARD FILE BY ORDER DY. REGISTRAR