Transwitch India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi V. DCIT, New Delhi

ITA 4994/DEL/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6765 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 11 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 02-11-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: I1
• Next Hearing Date: 02-11-2016
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 09-11-2011
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: AMRENDRA KUMAR
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH : I-1 : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R.S. SYAL, AM & SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JM ITA NO.4994/DEL/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007-08 TRANSWITCH INDIA PVT. LTD., A-27, MOHAN CO-OPERATIVE INDL. ESTATE, MATHURA ROAD, NEW DELHI. PAN : AAACT4902H VS. DCIT, CIRCLE-16(1), NEW DELHI. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY: SHRI AMRENDRA KUMAR, CIT, DR DATE OF HEARING : 02.11.2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 02.11.2016 ORDER PER R.S. SYAL, AM: THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE FINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE AO ON 25.8.2011 U/S 143(3) READ WITH SECTION 144C OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961, IN RELATION TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08. 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 ITA NO.4994/DEL/2011 2 APPLICATION ALSO. THE NOTICE OF HEARING SENT TO THE ASSESSEE TO THE ADDRESS GIVEN IN COLUMN NO.10 OF FORM NO.36 HAS NOT BEEN RE TURNED UNSERVED. EARLIER ALSO, THE MATTER GOT ADJOURNED MANY A TIMES FOR ONE REASON OR THE OTHER. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, IT APPEARS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED IN PROSECUTING ITS 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 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 ITA NO.4994/DEL/2011 3 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 0 2 ND NOVEMBER, 2016. SD/- SD/- [KULDIP SINGH] (R.S. SYAL) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 02 ND NOVEMBER, 2016. DK COPY FORWARDED TO 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR DY. REGISTRAR, ITAT, NEW DELHI