Surinder Kumar Gupta, Delhi V. DCIT, New Delhi

ITA 4870/DEL/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 121 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2807 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 18 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 14-01-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC 1
• Next Hearing Date: 11-12-2015
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 27-07-2015
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: AMRIT LAL

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH B NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI S.V. MEHROTRA : ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE: JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 4870/DEL/2015 ASSTT. YRS: 2011-12 SURINDER KUMAR GUPTA, VS. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, 45/6B, MALL ROAD, DELHI. NEW DELHI. PAN: AAEHS 7458 G ( APPELLANT ) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY : SHRI AMRIT LAL DATE OF HEARING : 11/12/2015. DATE OF ORDER : 12/01/2016. O R D E R PER S.V. MEHROTRA, A.M.. : THIS APPEAL, BY THE ASSESSEE , HAS BEEN PREFERRED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 10- 06-2015, PASSED BY THE CIT(A)-I, NEW DELHI, IN APPE AL NO. 319/14-15, RELATING TO A.Y. 2011-12. 2. AT THE TIME OF HEARING NONE PUT IN APPEARANCE ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE DESPITE PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE OF THE DATE OF HEARING A S IS APPARENT FROM THE ORDER SHEET DATED 09.11.2015, WHEN THE HEARING WAS ADJOUR NED AT THE REQUEST OF ASSESSEES COUNSEL TO 11.12.2015 AND BOTH THE PARTI ES WERE INTIMATED OF THE DATE FIXED IN THE OPEN COURT. THIS TIME THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT CARED EVEN TO APPLY FOR ADJOURNMENT. IT GIVES AN IMPRESSION THAT THE ASSESS EE IS NOT SERIOUS IN PURSUING THE PRESENT APPEAL FILED. CONSIDERING THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND KEEPING IN VIEW THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 19(2) OF THE INCOME-TAX APPELLAT E TRIBUNAL RULES AS WERE 2 CONSIDERED IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. MULTIPLAN INDIA L TD., (38 ITD 320)(DEL), THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IS LIABLE TO BE DISMISSED FOR WAN T OF PROSECUTION. 3. THE HON'BLE MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT IN THE CA SE OF ESTATE OF LATE TUKOJIRAO HOLKAR VS. CWT (223 ITR 480) HAS HELD AS UNDER: '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 REFE RENCE, THE COURT IS NOT BOUND TO ANSWER THE REFERENCE. ' 4. SIMILARLY, HON'BLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF NEW DIWAN OIL MILLS VS. CIT (2008) 296 ITR 495) RETURNED THE REFERENCE UNANSWERED SINCE THE ASSESSEE REMAINED ABSENT AND THERE WAS NOT ANY ASSI STANCE FROM THE ASSESSEE. 5. THEIR LORDSHIPS OF HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. B. BHATTACHARGEE & ANOTHER (118 ITR 461 AT PAGE 477-47 8) HELD THAT THE APPEAL DOES NOT MEAN, MERE FILING OF THE MEMO OF APPEAL BUT EFF ECTIVELY PURSUING THE SAME. 6. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE VIEW TAKEN IN THE CA SES CITED SUPRA, WE DISMISS THE APPEAL FOR NON-PROSECUTION. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 14.01.2016. SD/- SD/- ( SUCHITRA KAMBLE ) (S.V. MEHROTRA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 14/01/2016. *MP* COPY OF ORDER TO: 1. ASSESSEE 2. AO 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT, NEW DELHI.