S.M. Berry, New Delhi V. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 4243/DEL/2009

• Counselvise Citation: [2010] 119 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5573 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 04-03-2010
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Next Hearing Date: 04-03-2010
• Assessment Year: 2003-2004
• Appeal Filed On: 03-11-2009
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SURABHI AHLUWALIA

Judgement Text

I.T.A. NO. 4243/DEL/2009 1/3 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI, BENCH G BEFORE SHRI A. K. GARODIA, ACCOUTANT MEMBER AND SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.4243 /DEL/2009 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04) S M BERRY VS. ITO, WARD 23(3), S-202, GREATER KAILASH- II, NEW DELHI NEW DELHI. (APPELLANTS) (RESPONDENTS) PAN / GIR NO. AAEPB4176G APPELLANT BY: NONE RESPONDENT BY: MS. SURABHI AHLUWALIA, SR. DR ORDER PER GEORGE MATHAN, JM: 1. THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN PREFERRED A GAINST THE ORDER OF LD CIT(A) XXIII, NEW DELHI DATED 27.08.200 9 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04. 2. THIS CASE WAS LISTED FOR HEARING BEFORE THE TRIB UNAL ON 04.01.2010 WHICH WAS ADJOURNED TO 04.03.2010 ON THE REQUEST OF THE ASSESSEES COUNSEL AND THE DATE OF H EARING FIXED I.E. 04.03.2010 WAS INFORMED TO BOTH THE PART IES IN THE OPEN COURT. BUT TODAY, I.E. ON 04.03.2010, WHEN THE CASE WAS CALLED ON BOARD, NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF O F THE ASSESSEE NOR ANY REQUEST FOR ADJOURNMENT HAS BEEN F ILED I.T.A. NO. 4243/DEL/2009 2/3 BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. IT SEEMS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED IN PROSECUTING HIS APPEAL HENCE, THE APP EAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS LIABLE TO BE DISMISSED, FOR NON- PROSECUTION. OUR ABOVE VIEW FINDS SUPPORT 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 HE ARING. BUT ON THE DATE OF HEARING NOBODY REPRESENTED THE REVENUE/APPELLANT NOR ANY COMMUNICATION FOR ADJOURN MENT WAS RECEIVED. THERE WAS NO COMMUNICATION OR INFORMATION AS TO WHY THE REVENUE CHOSE TO REMAIN A BSENT ON THAT DATE. THE TRIBUNAL ON THE BASIS OF INHEREN T POWERS, I.T.A. NO. 4243/DEL/2009 3/3 TREATED THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE AS UNADMITT ED IN VIEW OF THE PROVISION OF RULE 19 OF THE APPELLATE R ULES, 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 04 TH MAR., 2010. SD./- SD./- (A.K.GARODIA) (GEORGE MATHAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED:04 TH MAR., 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