Mr. Girish Chandra Gupta, Budaun V. ITO, Badaun

ITA 4167/DEL/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 69699 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 22 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-12-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2003-2004
• Appeal Filed On: 08-07-2013
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SATPAL SINGH

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH : C : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI A.D. JAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B.C. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.4167/DEL/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2003-04 GIRISH CHANDRA GUPTA, S/O LATE SHRI RAM SAHNI GUPTA, R/O MISHRA GOLI DATAGANJ, BUDAUN. PAN : AEYPG3041F VS. ITO, BADAUN. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: NONE RESPONDENT BY: SHRI SATPAL SINGH, SR.DR ORDER PER SHRI A.D. JAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER: THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT(A) FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04. 2. WHEN THE MATTER WAS CALLED UP FOR HEARING ON 30.12.2013, NO ONE HAS APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE HA S NOT FILED ANY ADJOURNMENT APPLICATION ALSO. THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT-C UM-NOTICE GIVING THE DATE OF HEARING AS 30.12.2013 WAS SENT TO THE ASSES SEE, WHICH HAS NOT BEEN RETURNED UNSERVED.. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, IT APPE ARS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED IN PROSECUTING HIS APPEAL. THE APPEA L FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS, THEREFORE, LIABLE TO BE DISMISSED, FOR NON-PROSECUT ION. OUR ABOVE VIEW FIND SUPPORT FROM THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS:- ITA NO. 4167 /DEL/201 3 2 1. IN CIT VS. B.N. BHATTACHARGEE & ANR., 118 ITR 461, THEIR LORDSHIPS HAVE HELD: THE APPEAL DOES NOT MEAN MERELY FILING OF THE APPE AL BUT EFFECTIVELY PURSUING IT. 2. IN ESTATE OF LATE TUKOJIRAO HOLKAR VS. CWT, 22 3 ITR 480 (M.P.) WHILE DISMISSING THE REFERENCE MADE AT THE INSTANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IN DEFAULT, THEIR LORDSHIPS MADE THE FOLLOWING OBSE RVATION:- 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 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX VS. MULTIPLAN IND IA (P.) LTD, 38 ITD 320 (DEL.), THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL, WAS FIXED FOR HEARING. BUT ON THE DATE OF HEARING NOBO DY REPRESENTED THE REVENUE/APPELLANT NOR ANY COMMUNICATION FOR ADJOURN MENT WAS RECEIVED. THERE WAS NO COMMUNICATION OR INFORMATIO N AS TO WHY THE REVENUE CHOSE TO REMAIN ABSENT ON THAT DATE. THE T RIBUNAL ON THE BASIS OF INHERENT POWERS, TREATED THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE AS UNADMITTED IN VIEW OF THE PROVISION OF RULE 19 OF T HE APPELLATE RULES, 1963. 3. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASS ESSEE IS DISMISSED FOR NON- PROSECUTION. THE DECISION WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 3 0 TH DECEMBER, 2013. SD/- SD/- (B.C. MEENA) (A.D. JAIN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JU DICIAL MEMBER DATED: 30 TH DECEMBER, 2013. DK COPY FORWARDED TO 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR DY. REGISTRA R, ITAT, NEW DELHI