Raghubir Singh (Prop.), Haryana V. ITO, Panipat

ITA 444/DEL/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 130 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6993 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 11 month(s) 21 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-01-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 19-01-2017
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 28-01-2016
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: V. K. PRASANTH
• Section: 32; 147; 131; 68; 246; 69; 145; 27; 148; 54; 37; 6; 56; 263; 63; 132; 12; 28; 144; 10; 90; 154; 2; 11; 15; 271(1)(b); 139; 92

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH : SMC : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R.S. SYAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.444/DEL/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010-11 RAGHUBIR SINGH (PROP), R.S. CONSTRUCTIONS CO., 207, VIKAS NAGAR, NFL TOWNSHIP, PANIPAT. PAN : AVDPS3936R VS. ITO, WARD-3, PANIPAT. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY: SHRI V.K. PRASANTH, SR.DR DATE OF HEARING : 19.01.2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 19.01.2017 ORDER THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT(A) ON 15.12.2015 IN RELATION TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11. ITA NO.444/DEL/2016 2 2. WHEN THE MATTER WAS CALLED UP FOR HEARING TOD AY, NO ONE HAS APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FIL ED ANY ADJOURNMENT APPLICATION ALSO. THE NOTICE OF HEARING SENT TO THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN RETURNED UNSERVED. EARLIER, THE MATTER GOT ADJOURNE D A COUPLE OF TIMES AT THE WRITTEN REQUEST OF THE ASSESSEE AND DUE TO NON-APPE ARANCE OF THE ASSESSEE. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, IT APPEARS THAT THE ASSESSE E IS NOT INTERESTED IN PROSECUTING HIS APPEAL. THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASS ESSEE IS, THEREFORE, LIABLE TO BE DISMISSED, FOR NON-PROSECUTION. OUR ABOVE VI EW FINDS SUPPORT FROM THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS:- 1. CIT VS. B.N. BHATTACHARGEE & ANR., 118 ITR 461, WHE REIN THEIR LORDSHIPS HAVE HELD: THE APPEAL DOES NOT MEAN MERELY FILING OF THE APPE AL BUT EFFECTIVELY PURSUING IT. 2. ESTATE OF LATE TUKOJIRAO HOLKAR VS. CWT, 223 ITR 4 80 (M.P.), WHEREIN, WHILE DISMISSING THE REFERENCE MADE AT THE INSTANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IN DEFAULT, THEIR LORDSHIPS MADE THE FOLLO WING OBSERVATION:- 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. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX VS. MULTIPLAN INDIA (P. ) LTD, 38 ITD 320 (DEL.),WHEREIN THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE BEFORE THE ITA NO.444/DEL/2016 3 TRIBUNAL, WAS FIXED FOR HEARING. BUT ON THE DATE O F HEARING 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 A BSENT ON THAT DATE. THE TRIBUNAL ON THE BASIS OF INHERENT POWERS , TREATED THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE AS UNADMITTED IN VIEW O F THE PROVISION OF RULE 19 OF THE INCOME-TAX (APPELLATE TRIBUNAL) R ULES, 1963. 3. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASS ESSEE IS DISMISSED FOR NON- PROSECUTION. THE DECISION WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 1 9 TH JANUARY, 2017. SD/- (R.S. SYAL) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 19 TH JANUARY, 2017. DK COPY FORWARDED TO 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR DY. REGISTRAR, ITAT, NEW DELHI