Harphool Singh Soni, Hisar V. CIT, Hisar

ITA 504/DEL/2012

• Counselvise Citation: 50420114 RSA 2012
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 10 month(s) 28 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-12-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 30-12-2013
• Assessment Year: 1991-1992
• Appeal Filed On: 01-02-2012
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SATPAL SINGH

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH : C : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI A.D. JAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B.C. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.504/DEL/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 1991-92 HARPHOOL SINGH SONI, C/O HARISH BINDAL, ADVOCATE, KATH MANDI, HISAR. PAN : AEZPS9058P VS. ACIT, HISAR. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: NONE RESPONDENT BY: SHRI SATPAL SINGH, SR.DR ORDER PER SHRI A.D. JAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER: THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 17.02.2011 PASSED BY THE CIT(A), ROHTAK, FOR ASSESS MENT YEAR 1991-92. 2. WHEN THE MATTER WAS CALLED UP FOR HEARING ON 30.12.2013, NO ONE HAS APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE HA S NOT FILED ANY ADJOURNMENT APPLICATION ALSO. EARLIER TOO, THE ASSE SSEE HAD TAKEN ADJOURNMENTS FOR ONE REASON OR THE OTHER. THE DATE OF HEARING WAS ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT, WHEN THE MATTER WAS AD JOURNED ON 18.09.2013 AT THE REQUEST OF THE ASSESSEE TO 30.12.2013, WHICH WAS NOTED BY REPRESENTATIVES OF BOTH THE PARTIES. IN THESE CIRCU MSTANCES, IT APPEARS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED IN PROSECUTING HIS APPEA L. THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ITA NO.504/DEL/2012 2 ASSESSEE IS, THEREFORE, LIABLE TO BE DISMISSED, FOR NON-PROSECUTION. OUR ABOVE VIEW FIND SUPPORT FROM THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS:- 1. IN CIT VS. B.N. BHATTACHARGEE & ANR., 118 ITR 461, THEIR LORDSHIPS HAVE HELD: THE APPEAL DOES NOT MEAN MERELY FILING OF THE APPE AL BUT EFFECTIVELY PURSUING IT. 2. IN ESTATE OF LATE TUKOJIRAO HOLKAR VS. CWT, 22 3 ITR 480 (M.P.) WHILE DISMISSING THE REFERENCE MADE AT THE INSTANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IN DEFAULT, THEIR LORDSHIPS MADE THE FOLLOWING OBSE RVATION:- 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. IN COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX VS. MULTIPLAN IND IA (P.) LTD, 38 ITD 320 (DEL.), THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL, WAS FIXED FOR HEARING. BUT ON THE DATE OF HEARING NOBO DY REPRESENTED THE REVENUE/APPELLANT NOR ANY COMMUNICATION FOR ADJOURN MENT WAS RECEIVED. THERE WAS NO COMMUNICATION OR INFORMATIO N AS TO WHY THE REVENUE CHOSE TO REMAIN ABSENT ON THAT DATE. THE T RIBUNAL ON THE BASIS OF INHERENT POWERS, TREATED THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE AS UNADMITTED IN VIEW OF THE PROVISION OF RULE 19 OF T HE APPELLATE RULES, 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 3 0 TH DECEMBER, 2013. SD/- SD/- (B.C. MEENA) (A.D. JAIN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JU DICIAL MEMBER DATED: 30 TH DECEMBER, 2013. DK ITA NO.504/DEL/2012 3 COPY FORWARDED TO 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR DY. REGISTRA R, ITAT, NEW DELHI