Panchsheel Homes (P) Ltd, Ghaziabad V. ACIT, Meerut

ITA 4386/DEL/2009

• Counselvise Citation: [2010] 136 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3493 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-07-2010
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Next Hearing Date: 20-07-2010
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 16-11-2009
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: BANITA DEVI NAOREM

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH F, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI I.P. BANSAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI R.C. SHARMA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 4386/DEL/2009 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2005-06 M/S PANCHSHEEL HOMES VS. ACIT, PRIVATE LIMITED, CENTRAL CIRCLE, MEERUT. 195-A, EAST MODEL TOWN, GHAZIABAD. AACCP66995F (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY : SMT. BANITA DEVI NAOREM, SR. D R ORDER PER I.P. BANSAL, J.M. THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND IS DIR ECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) DATED 10 TH AUGUST, 2009 FOR A.Y. 2005-06. 2. EARLIER THIS APPEAL WAS FIXED ON 14.01.2010 WHEN IT WAS ADJOURNED ON THE REQUEST OF ASSESSES COUNSEL ON 5 TH APRIL, 2010 AGAIN THE APPEAL WAS ADJOURNED AT THE REQUEST OF THE ASSE SSEE TO 20 TH JULY, 2010 AND BOTH THE PARTIES WERE INFORMED. HOWEVER, ON 20 TH JULY, 2010 NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, IT IS PRESUMED THAT ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED IN PROSECUTING THE APPEA L. HENCE, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS LIABLE TO BE DISMISSED, FO R NON-PROSECUTION, FINDING SUPPORT FROM THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS: ITA NO. 4386/D/09 2 1. IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. B.N. BHATTACHARGEE AND A NOTHER, REPORTED IN 118 ITR 461 [RELEVANT PAGES 477 & 478] WHEREIN THEIR LO RDSHIPS 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 V S. 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: 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 HEARING 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 FILED BY THE REVENUE B EFORE THE TRIBUNAL, WHICH WAS FIXED FOR HEARING. BUT ON THE DATE OF HE ARING NOBODY REPRESENTED THE REVENUE/APPELLANT NOR ANY COMMUNICA TION FOR ADJOURNMENT WAS RECEIVED. THERE WAS NO COMMUNICATI ON OR INFORMATION AS TO WHY THE REVENUE CHOSE TO REMAIN ABSENT ON THA T DATE. THE TRIBUNAL ON THE BASIS OF INHERENT POWERS, TREATED T HE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE AS UN-ADMITTED IN VIEW OF THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 19 OF THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RULES, 1963. 3. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED, FOR NON-PROSECUTION. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 23.07.10 (R.C. SHARMA) (I.P. BANSAL) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDI CIAL MEMBER DATED: 23.7.10 *KAVITA CHOPRA ITA NO. 4386/D/09 3 COPY FORWARDED TO: - 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT TRUE COPY BY ORDER, DEPUTY REGISTRAR