Senior Scientist (DDO), Hisar V. ITO (TDS), Hisar

ITA 4809/DEL/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 119 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7824 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 04-07-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Next Hearing Date: 04-07-2012
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 03-11-2011
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S MOHANTY

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH G, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI S.V. MEHROTRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI C.M. GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NOS. 4807 TO 4811 /DEL/2011 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2006-07 TO 2010-11 SENIOR SCIENTIST (DDO), VS. ITO (TDS), ANIL AGGARWAL & CO. C.A., INCOME TAX OFFICE, 22-GREEN PARK, SECTOR-14, HISAR. HISAR. PAN: RTKDO2674A (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY : SMT. S. MOHANTY, SR. DR ORDER PER S.V. MEHROTRA, A.M. THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. IT IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) DATED 24.08.2011 FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 20 06-07 TO 2010-11. 2. THE CASE WAS EARLIER LISTED FOR HEARING ON 5 TH JANUARY, 2012 AND WAS ADJOURNED TO 4 TH JULY, 2012 AT THE REQUEST OF THE ASSESSEES COUNSE L. NOTICE THROUGH RPAD WAS ALSO SENT. HOWEVER, ON THE DATE OF HEARING, NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESEE NOR ANY ADJO URNMENT APPLICATION WAS FILED ON BEHALF OF ASSESSEE. IT APPEARS THAT T HE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED IN PROSECUTING THE APPEAL. HENCE, THE A PPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS LIABLE TO BE DISMISSED, FOR NON-PROSECU TION, FINDING SUPPORT FROM THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS: ITA NOS. 4807 TO 4811/D/2011 2 1. IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. B.N. BHATTACHARGEE AND ANOTHER, REPORTED IN 118 ITR 461 [RELEVANT PAGES 47 7 & 478] WHEREIN THEIR LORDSHIPS HAVE HELD THAT: THE APPEAL DOES NOT MEAN MERELY FILING OF THE APPEAL 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 INSTANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IN DEFAULT MADE FOLLOWING OBSERVATION IN THEIR ORDER: IF THE PARTY, AT WHOSE INSTANCE THE REFERENCE IS MADE, 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. MULTIPLAN INDIA (P) LTD.; 38 ITD 320 (DEL), THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL, WH ICH WAS FIXED FOR HEARING. BUT ON THE DATE OF HEARING NOBODY REPRESENTE THE REVENUE/APPELLANT NOR ANY COMMUNICATION FOR ADJOURNMENT WAS RECEIVED. THERE WAS NO COMMUNICATION OR INFORMATION AS TO WHY THE REVENUE CHOSE TO REMAIN ABSENT ON THAT 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 04.07.2012 SD/- SD/- (C.M. GARG) (S.V. MEHROTRA ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUN TANT MEMBER DATED: 04.07.2012 *KAVITA ITA NOS. 4807 TO 4811/D/2011 3 COPY FORWARDED TO: - 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT TRUE COPY BY ORDER, DEPUTY REGISTRAR