Superintendent (DDO), Hisar V. ITO (TDS), Hisar

ITA 4823/DEL/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 119 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7821 (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: SURJAN MOHANTY

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH `G NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI S.V. MEHROTRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI CHANDRA MOHAN GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A.NO.4820/DEL/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006-07 I.T.A.NO.4821/DEL/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007-08 I.T.A.NO.4822/DEL/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008-09 I.T.A.NO.4823/DEL/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10 I.T.A.NO.4824/DEL/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010-11 SUPERINTENDENT (DDO), VS INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS), DEPARTMENT OF PLANT BREEDING, INCOME T AX OFFICE, C/O ANIL AGGARWAL & CO., C.A., SECTOR 14, HISAR-125001 22, GREEN PARK, HISAR - 125001 (PAN RTKDO2688A) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: NONE RESPONDENT BY : SMT. SURJAN MOHANTY, S R.DR O R D E R PER CHANDRA MOHAN GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER THE ABOVE APPEALS HAVE BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE A GAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A), ROHTAK DATED 24.8.2011 PERTAINING TO ASSTT. YEARS 2006-07 TO 2010- 2011. ITA NO.4820/DEL/2011& ORS. 2 2. THIS CASE WAS INITIALLY FIXED FOR HEARING ON 5.1 .2012 AND ON THE REQUEST OF THE ASSESSEES COUNSEL WAS ADJOURNED TO 4.7.2012 AND BOTH PARTIES WERE INFORMED. TODAY ON 4.7.2012, NO ONE WAS PRESE NT ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE NOR ANY REQUEST FOR ADJOURNMENT WAS PLACED BEFORE THE BENCH. SMT. MOHANTY, SENIOR DR, APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE REVEN UE AT THE TIME OF HEARING. 3. IT APPEARS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED I N GETTING THE APPEALS PROSECUTED. HONBLE MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT IN T HE CASE OF TUKOJIRAO HOLKAR VS CWT 223 ITR 480 (MP) , WHILE DISMISSING THE REFERENCE MADE AT THE INSTANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IN DEFAULT, MADE THE F OLLOWING OBSERVATIONS:- IF THE PARTY AT WHOSE INSTANCE, THE REFERENCE IS MADE, FAILS TO APPEAR AT THE HEARING OR FAILS IN TA KING STEPS FOR PREPARATION OF THE PAPER BOOKS SO AS TO E NABLE HEARING OF THE REFERENCE, THE COURT IS NOT BOUND TO ANSWER THE REFERENCE. 4. ITAT DELHI BENCH D IN THE CASE OF CIT VS MULTI PLAN INDIA (P) LTD. 38 ITD 320 OBSERVED THAT THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 19 STATE THAT MERE ISSUE OF NOTICE COULD NOT BY ITSELF MEAN THAT THE APPEAL HAD BEEN ADMITTED. THIS RULE ONLY CLARIFIES THE POSITION. THERE MIGHT BE VARIOUS REASONS WITH THE APPELLANT TO REMAIN ABSENT AT THE TIME OF HEARING. ONE OF TH E REASONS MIGHT ALSO BE A DESIRE OR ABSENCE OF NEED TO PROSECUTE THE APPEAL O R LIABILITY TO ASSIST THE TRIBUNAL IN A PROPER MANNER OR TO TAKE BENEFIT OF V AGARIES OF LAW. ITA NO.4820/DEL/2011& ORS. 3 5. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE PRECEDENTS, THE APPEA LS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE TREATED AS UN-ADMITTED AND DISMISSED I N LIMINE. WE MAY LIKE TO CLARIFY THAT SUBSEQUENTLY, IF THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINS THE REASONS FOR NON- APPEARANCE AND IF THE BENCH IS SO SATISFIED, THE MA TTER MAY BE RECALLED FOR THE PURPOSE OF ADJUDICATION OF THE APPEAL. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED FOR NON- PROSECUTION. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 4.7.2012. SD/- SD/- (S.V. MEHROTRA) (CHANDRA MOH AN GARG) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DT. 4 TH JULY, 2012 GS COPY FORWARDED TO:- 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT(A) 4. CIT 5. DR BY ORDER ASSTT. REGISTRAR