Rakesh Kumar Gupta, New Delhi V. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

ITA 4272/DEL/2013

• Counselvise Citation: 427220114 RSA 2013
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 4 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-11-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Next Hearing Date: 26-11-2014
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 15-07-2013
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: VIKRAM SAHAY

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH F, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI G.D. AGRAWAL, VICE PRESIDENT & SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 4272/DEL/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09 RAKESH KUMAR GUPTA, VS. ADDL. CIT, C-66A, SHIVAJI PARK, RANGE-25, PUNJABI BAGH, NEW DELHI. NEW DELHI. AFXPG3847B (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY : SH. VIKRAM SAHAY, SR. DR ORDER PER H.S. SIDHU, J.M. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE PRESENT APPEAL AGAINST THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 17.05.2013. THE AFORESAID CASE CAME UP FOR H EARING BEFORE THE BENCH ON 26/11/2014 BY ISSUING RPAD TO THE ASSESSEE ON THE ADDRESS GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE IN FORM NO. 36 COLUMN NO. 10 INSPITE OF THE SAME ASSESSEE NOT HIS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE APPEAR T O PROSECUTE THE MATTER IN DISPUTE, NOR FILED ANY APPLICATION FOR ADJOURNMENT. 2. KEEPING IN VIEW OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES O F THE PRESENT CASE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT NO USEFUL PURPOSE WOULD BE SER VED TO ISSUE NOTICE AGAIN AND AGAIN TO THE ASSESSEE ON THE SAME ADDRESS. TH EREFORE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED TO PROSECUTE T HE MATTER IN DISPUTE AND THE PRESENT APPEAL IS DISMISSED AS UN-ADMITTED IN L IMINE. THEREFORE, WE DISMISS THE SAME FOR NON-PROSECUTION, FINDING SUPPO RT FROM THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS: 1. IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. B.N. BHATTACHARGEE AND ANOT HER, REPORTED IN 118 ITR 461 [RELEVANT PAGES 477 & 478] WHEREIN THEIR LORDSHIPS HAVE HELD THAT: ITA NOS. 4272/D/2013 RAKESH KUMAR GUPTA 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 T HE INSTANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IN DEFAULT MADE FOLLOWING OBSERVATI ON 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 PAPER BOOKS SO AS TO ENABLE HEAR ING OF THE REFERENCE, THE COURT IS NOT BOUND TO ANSWER THE REFERENCE. 3. IN THE CASE OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX VS. MULTI PLAN 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/APPE LLANT NOR ANY COMMUNICATION FOR ADJOURNMENT WAS RECEIVED. TH ERE WAS NO COMMUNICATION OR INFORMATION AS TO WHY THE REVEN UE CHOSE TO REMAIN ABSENT ON THAT DATE. THE TRIBUNAL ON THE BASIS OF INHERENT POWERS, TREATED THE APPEAL FILED BY THE RE VENUE AS UN- ADMITTED IN VIEW OF THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 19 OF TH E APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RULES, 1963. 3. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED IN LIMINE FOR NON-PROSECUTION. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 26/11/2014 SD/- SD/- (G.D. AGRAWAL) (H .S. SIDHU) VICE PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 26/11/2014 *KAVITA COPY FORWARDED TO: - 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT TRUE COPY BY ORDER, ASSISTANT REGISTRAR