V. Nagrajan, Gurgaon V. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 4318/DEL/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 53024 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 1 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-10-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: H
• Next Hearing Date: 25-10-2011
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 21-09-2010
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: DR B R R KUMAR
• Assessee Lawyers: N O N E

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL [ DELHI BENCH H DELHI ] BEFORE SHRI A. D. JAIN, JM AND SHRI K. D. RAN JAN, AM I. T. APPEAL NO. 4318 (DEL) OF 2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006-07. SHRI V. NAGARAJAN, ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF I NCOME-TAX, O P E N H O U S E, VS. C I R C L E : 37 ( 1), D 2058, P A L A M V I H A R, N E W D E L H I. G U R G A O N 122 017. P A N / G I R NO. AAF PN 8655 H. ( APPELLANT ) ( RESPONDENT ) ASSESSEE BY : N O N E; DEPARTMENT BY : DR. B. R. R. KUMAR, SR. D. R .; O R D E R. PER K. D. RANJAN, AM : THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 20 06-07 ARISES OUT OF ORDER OF THE LD. CIT (APPEALS)-XXVIII, NEW DELHI. 2. AT THE OUTSET, IT IS FOUND THAT THE APPEAL IS DE FECTIVE AND THE TRIBUNALS FEE IS SHORT BY RS.9,500/-, AND THIS FACT WAS BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF THE ASSESSEE. 3. THIS APPEAL WAS FIXED FOR HEARING ON 23/11/2010 AND THIS DATE WAS NOTED AT THE TIME OF FILING OF THE APPEAL ON 21/09/2010. ON 21 ST SEPTEMBER, 2010 THE BENCH DID NOT FUNCTION AND THE CASE WAS ADJOURNED TO 25/01/2011, 40/03/2011 AND 4/ 07/2011 RESPECTIVELY AND ON THESE THREE OCCASIONS ALSO THE BENCH DID NOT FUNCTION AND THE C ASE WAS ADJOURNED. THE CASE WAS AGAIN FIXED ON 25 TH OCTOBER, 2011. ON 25/10/2011, WHEN THE CASE WAS C ALLED FOR HEARING, NOBODY APPEARED 2 I. T. APPEAL NO. 4318 (DEL) OF 2010 ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE AT THE TIME OF HEARING AN D NOR WAS ANY APPLICATION FOR ADJOURNMENT RECEIVED. IT APPEARS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTE RESTED IN GETTING THE APPEAL PROSECUTED. HON'BLE MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF TUKOJIRAO HOLKAR VS. CWT 223 ITR 480 (MP) WHILE DISMISSING THE REFERENCE MADE AT THE INSTANCE OF TH E ASSESSEE IN DEFAULT MADE THE FOLLOWING OBSERVATIONS: 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 BOOK S O AS TO ENABLE HEARING OF THE REFERENCE, THE COURT IS NOT BOUND TO ANSWER THE REFERENCE. 4. ITAT DELHI BENCH D IN THE CASE OF CIT V. MULTI PLAN INDIA (P) LTD. OBSERVED THAT THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 19 STATE THAT MERE ISSUE OF NOTI CE COULD NOT BY ITSELF MEAN THAT THE APPEAL HAD BEEN ADMITTED. THIS RULE ONLY CLARIFIES THE POSITIO N. THERE MIGHT BE VARIOUS REASONS WITH THE APPELLANT TO REMAIN ABSENT AT THE TIME OF HEARING. ONE OF THE REASONS MIGHT ALSO BE A DESIRE OR ABSENCE OF NEED TO PROSECUTE THE APPEAL OR LIABILIT Y TO ASSIST THE TRIBUNAL IN A PROPER MANNER OR TO TAKE BENEFIT OF VAGARIES OF LAW. 5. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE PRECEDENTS THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS TREATED AS UN-ADMITTED AND DISMISSED IN LIMINE. WE MAY LIKE T O CLARIFY THAT SUBSEQUENTLY IF THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINS THE REASONS FOR NON-APPEARANCE AND IF THE BENCH IS SO SATISFIED, THE MATTER MAY BE RECALLED FOR THE PURPOSE OF ADJUDICATION OF THE APP EAL. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED FOR NON-PROSECUTION. THE ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON : 25 TH OCTOBER, 2011. SD/- S D/- [ A. D. JAIN ] [ K. D. RANJAN ] JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED : 25 TH OCTOBER, 2011. *MEHTA * 3 I. T. APPEAL NO. 4318 (DEL) OF 2010 COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : - 1. APPELLANT. 2. RESPONDENT. 3. CIT, 4. CIT (APPEALS), 5. DR, ITAT, NEW DELHI. TRUE COPY. BY ORDER. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT. 4 I. T. APPEAL NO. 4318 (DEL) OF 2010