Mamta Kalucha, Delhi V. DCIT, Delhi

ITA 4198/DEL/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 128 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3546 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 8 month(s) 20 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-04-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Next Hearing Date: 20-04-2017
• Assessment Year: 2003-2004
• Appeal Filed On: 31-07-2014
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH E BENCH NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI N.K. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO S . 4198/DEL./2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR S : 2003 - 04 MAMTA KALUCHA 256/5, PADAM NAGAR, DELHI VS. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE - 15, JHANDEWALLAN, DELHI (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) (PAN: AGLPK1495Q) ASSESSEE BY : NONE REVENUE BY: SH RAJESH KUMAR , SR. DR DATE OF HEARING 2 0 /0 4 / 201 7 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 20 / 0 4 /201 7 O R D E R PER AMIT SHUKLA , JUDICIAL MEMBER THE AFORESAID APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST ORDER PASSED BY LD CIT(A PPEAL ) - I, NEW DELHI DATED 02 .0 4 .201 4 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 200 3 - 0 4 . 2. TODAY, I.E. ON 20 .0 4.2017 WHEN THE CASE W AS CALLED ON BOARD, NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE N OR ANY REQUEST FOR ADJOURNMENT HAS BEEN FILED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. IT SEEMS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED IN PROSECUTING THE APPEAL; HENCE, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS LIABLE TO BE UN - ADMITTED AND DISMISSED FOR NON - PROSECUTION. IN OUR ABOVE V IEW, WE FIND SUPPORT FROM THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS: - (I). IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. B.N. BHATTACHARGEE & ANOTHER 118 ITR 46 1 (RELEVANT PAGES 477 & 478) WHEREIN THEIR LORDSHIPS HAVE HELD THAT THE APPEAL DOES NOT MEAN MERELY FILING OF APPEAL BUT EFFECTIVELY PUR SUING IT. PAGE 2 OF 3 (II). IN THE CASE OF ESTATE OF LATE TUKOJI RAO HOLKER VS. CWT 223 ITR 480 (MP) WHILE DISMISSING THE REFERENCE MADE AT THE INSTANCE OF ASSESSEE IN DEFAULT MADE FOLLOWING OBSERVATIONS 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, THIS COURT IS NOT BOUND TO ANSWER THE REFERENCE. (III). IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. MULTIPLAN INDIA PVT. LTD. 38 ITD 320 ( D EL). THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL WHICH WAS FIXED FOR HEARING BUT ON THE DATE OF HEARING NOBODY REPRESENTED THE REVENUE / APPLICANT, NOR ANY COMMUNICATION FOR ADJOURNMENT WAS RECEIVED. THERE WAS NO COMMUNICATION OR INFORMATION AS TO WHY REVENUE CHOOSE TO REMAIN ABSENT ON THAT DATE. THE TRIBUNAL ON THE BASIS OF INHERENT POWER TREATED THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE AS UN - ADMITTED IN VIEW OF RULE 19 OF THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RULES, 1963. 3. THEREFORE, KEEPING IN VIEW THE ABOVE, THE PRESENT APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED FOR NON - PROSECUTION. THE ASSESSEE, IF SO ADVISED, SHALL BE FREE TO MOVE THIS TRIBUNAL PRAYING FOR RECALLING OF THIS ORDER AND EXPLAINING THE REASONS FOR NON - COMPLIANCE ETC. AND IF THE BENCH IS SO SATISFIED ABOUT TH E REASONS ETC, THEN THIS ORDER SHALL BE RECALLED. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 2 0 / 0 4 /201 7 . ( N.K. SAINI ) (AMIT SHUKLA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER PAGE 3 OF 3 DATED: 2 0 / 0 4 / 2017 NARENDER COPY FORWARDED TO 1 . APPLICANT 2 . RESPONDENT 3 . CIT 4 . CIT (A) 5 . DR:ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, NEW DELHI