BLB Society for Education & Research, New Delhi V. DIT(E), Delhi

ITA 4352/DEL/2010

• Counselvise Citation: 435220114 RSA 2010
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 4 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-02-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 22-02-2012
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 23-09-2010
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES: A NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI S.V.MEHROTRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO: 4352/DEL/2010 A.Y. : BLB SOCIETY FOR EDUCATION & RESEARCH VS. DIT (E) 4233/1 ANSARI ROAD, DARIYAGANJ DELHI NEW DELHI 2 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : NONE. RESPONDENT BY : SH.DEV JYOTI DAS, CIT, D.R. O R D E R PER DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER THIS IS THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 6.9.2010 OF DIT(E), NEW DELHI U/S 80G(5)(VI) OF TH E INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 READ WITH RULE 11AA OF THE I.T.RULES, 1962. 2. HOWEVER, AT THE TIME OF HEARING NO ONE WAS PRESE NT ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE NOR ANY REQUEST FOR ADJOURNMENT PLACED BEFORE THE BENCH. A PERUSAL OF THE FILE SHOWS THAT THE APPEAL WAS ADJ OURNED ON MANY OCCASIONS ON THE WRITTEN REQUEST OF THE LD.A.R. IN VIEW OF THE PECULIAR FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT TH E ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED IN PURSUING THE APPEAL, HENCE, THE APP EAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS LIABLE TO BE UNADMITTED/DISMISSED. IN OUR ABOVE VIEW, WE FIND SUPPORT FROM THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS: 1. IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. B.N. BHATTACHARGEE AND ANOTH ER, REPORTED IN 118 ITR 461 [RELEVANT PAGES 477 & 478] WHEREIN THEI R LORDSHIPS HAVE HELD THAT: 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 THE I NSTANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IN DEFAULT MADE FOLLOWING OBSERVATION IN T HEIR ORDER: ITA 4352/DEL/10 PAGE 2 BLB SOCIETY FOR EDUCATION&RESEARCH., N.DELHI A.Y.: - 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. M ULTIPLAN INDIA (P) LTD.; 38 ITD 320 (DEL), THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REV ENUE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL, WHICH WAS FIXED FOR HEARING. BUT ON THE DATE OF HEARING NOBODY REPRESENTED THE REVENUE/APPELLANT NOR ANY CO MMUNICATION FOR ADJOURNMENT WAS RECEIVED. THERE WAS NO COMMUNI CATION OR INFORMATION AS TO WHY THE REVENUE CHOSE TO REMAIN A BSENT ON THAT DATE. THE TRIBUNAL ON THE BASIS OF INHERENT POWERS , TREATED THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE AS UN-ADMITTED IN VIEW OF THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 19 OF THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RULES, 1963. 3. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THESE DECISIONS (SUPRA), THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESEE IS TREATED AS UNADMITTED/DISMISSED FOR NON PERSECUTION. WE MAY LIKE TO CLARIFY THAT SUBSEQUENTLY IF THE ASSESS EE MOVES AN APPROPRIATE APPLICATION FOR RECALL OF THE ORDER AND EXPLAIN THE REASONS FOR NON APPEARANCE AND IF THE BENCH IS SO SATISFIED, TH E ORDER MAY BE RECALLED FOR THE PURPOSE OF ADJUDICATION OF THE APP EAL. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESS EE IS DISMISSED FOR NON PROSECUTION. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 22 ND FEBRUARY, 2012 IMMEDIATELY AFTER CONCLUSION OF THE HEARING. SD/- SD/- (S.V.MEHROTRA) (DIVA SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 22 ND FEB., 2012 *MANGA COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT; 2.RESPONDENT; 3.CIT; 4.CI T(A); 5.DR; 6.GUARD FILE BY ORDER DY. REGISTRAR