The Magic Years Educational Society, New Delhi V. DIT(E), New Delhi

ITA 4141/DEL/2009

• Counselvise Citation: [2010] 136 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3834 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-05-2010
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Next Hearing Date: 03-02-2014
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 21-10-2009
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PRATIMA KAUSHIK

Judgement Text

I.T.A. NO. 4141/DEL/2009 1/3 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI, BENCH E BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A K GARODIA, ACCOUTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 4141/DEL/2009 THE MAGIC YEARS VS. DIT (EXEMPTIONS) EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY, DISTRICT CENTRE E-3, STREET, VASANT VIHAR, LAXMI NAGAR, NEW DELHI NEW DELHI. (APPELLANTS) (RESPONDENTS) PAN / GIR NO. APPELLANT BY: NONE RESPONDENT BY: SMT. PRATIMA KAUSHIK, SR. DR ORDER PER A. K. GARODIA, AM: 1. THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN DIRECTED AG AINST THE ORDER DATED 30.09.2009 OF THE DIRECTOR OF INCOME TA X (EXEMPTIONS), LAXMI NAGAR DISTRICT CENTER, DELHI. 2. THE APPEAL WAS FIXED FOR HEARING ON 26.05.201 0. THE NOTICE OF HEARING WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE ON 05.05.2010 AT THE ADDRESS GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE IN FORM 36. THERE IS NO INTIMATION RECEIVED FROM THE ASSESSEE REGARDING ANY CHANGE OF ADDRESS. NOTICE HAS ALSO NOT COME BACK UNSERVED AND HENCE SERVICE OF NOTICE PRESUMED. IN SPITE OF THIS, NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE ON TH E APPOINTED DATE OF HEARING. HENCE IT IS INFERRED TH E ASSESSEE I.T.A. NO. 4141/DEL/2009 2/3 IS NOT INTERESTED IN PROSECUTING HIS APPEAL; HENCE, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS LIABLE TO BE DISMIS SED, FOR NON-PROSECUTION. IN OUR ABOVE VIEW, WE FIND SUPPOR T 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 HEARING. BUT ON THE DATE OF HEARING NOBODY REPRESE NTED THE REVENUE/APPELLANT NOR ANY COMMUNICATION FOR ADJOURNMENT WAS RECEIVED. THERE 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 I.T.A. NO. 4141/DEL/2009 3/3 REVENUE AS UNADMITTED IN VIEW OF THE PROVISION OF R ULE 19 OF THE APPELLATE RULES, 1963. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASS ESSEE, IS DISMISSED FOR NON-PROSECUTION. 5. THIS DECISION WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT O N 26 TH MAY, 2010. SD./- SD./- (RAJPAL YADAV) (A K GARODIA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED:26 TH MAY, 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