Sh. Ayub Hussain, Panipat V. ITO, Panipat

ITA 4077/DEL/2014

• Counselvise Citation: 407720114 RSA 2014
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 05-08-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC 2
• Next Hearing Date: 05-08-2015
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 21-07-2014
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH SMC - II , NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S.SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 4077 /DEL/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007 - 08 ORDER THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A), KARNAL DATED 12.11.2013 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007 - 08 . 2. THE APPEAL WAS FIXED FOR HEARING ON 05.08.2015, THE NOTICE WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE ON THE ADDRESS GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE IN FORM NO. 36 COLUMN NO. 10, IN RESPONSE TO THE SAME NEITHER THE ASSESSEE NOR ITS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE APPEARED BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL OR FILED AN Y APPLICATION FOR ADJOURNMENT. 3. IN VI EW OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE I AM OF THE VIEW THAT NO USEFUL PURPOSE WOULD BE SERVED TO ISSUE NOTICE AGAIN AND AGAIN TO THE ASSESSEE ON THE SAME ADDRESS. THEREFORE, I AM OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED TO PROSEC UTE THE MATTER IN DISPUTE . THEREFORE, THE PRESENT APPEAL IS DISMISSED IN LIMINE WITH LIBERTY TO THE ASSESSEE IF SO ADVISED , CAN MOVE APPLICATION FOR RECALLING OF THIS ORDER AND THAT WILL BE DECIDED AS PER LAW. I DISMISS THE PRESENT APPEAL FOR NON - PROSECUTI ON . THIS FINDING IS SUPPORT ED BY THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS: 1. IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. B.N. BHATTACHARGEE AND ANOTHER, REPORTED IN 118 ITR 461 [RELEVANT PAGES 477 & 478] WHEREIN THEIR LORDSHIPS HAVE HELD THAT: AYUB HUSSAIN, PROP. M/S FOOD PAKIZA, C/O NESTLE INDIA LTD., SAMALKHA, PANIPAT PAN:AASPH3526J VS. ITO, WARD - 4, PANIPAT (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY : SH. SUDHIRANJAN SENAPATI, SR. DR DATE OF HEARING : 05.08.2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 05.08.2015 PAGE 2 OF 2 THE APPEAL DOES NOT MEAN MERELY FILING OF THE APPE AL BUT EFFECTIVELY PURSUING IT. 2. IN THE CASE OF ESTATE OF LATE TUKOJIRAO HOLKAR VS. CWT; 223 ITR 480 (M.P.) WHILE DISMISSING THE REFERENCE MADE AT THE INSTANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IN DEFAULT MADE FOLLOWING OBSERVATION IN THEIR ORDER: IF THE PARTY, AT WHOSE INSTANCE THE REFERENCE IS MADE, FAILS TO APPEAR AT THE HEARING, OR FAILS IN TAKING STEPS FOR PREPARATION OF THE PAPER BOOKS SO AS TO ENABLE HEARING OF THE REFERENCE, THE COURT IS NOT BOUND TO ANSWER THE REFERENCE. 3. IN THE CASE OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX VS. MULTIPLAN INDIA (P) LTD.; 38 ITD 320 (DEL), THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL, WHICH WAS FIXED FOR HEARING. BUT ON THE DATE OF HEARING NOBODY REPRESENTED THE REVENUE/APPELLANT NOR ANY COMMUNICATION FOR ADJOURNMENT WAS RECEIVED. THE RE WAS NO COMMUNICATION OR INFORMATION AS TO WHY THE REVENUE CHOSE TO REMAIN ABSENT ON THAT 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 TR IBUNAL RULES, 1963. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED FOR NON - PROSECUTION. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 5 TH AUGUST , 2015 . - S D / - ( H.S.SIDHU ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 5 TH AUGUST, 2015 AKK COPY FORWARDED TO: - 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT TRUE COPY BY ORDER, ASSISTANT REGISTRAR