M/s. Etisha Finance & Investment Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi V. DCIT, New Delhi

ITA 5057/DEL/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 65451 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 10 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 14-09-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 10-09-2012
• Assessment Year: 2003-2004
• Appeal Filed On: 14-11-2011
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S K JAIN SR DR APPEAL HEARD ON
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit
• Section: 68

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: B NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI S.V.MEHROTRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KULBHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A .NO.- 5057/DEL/2011 (ASSESSMENT YEAR-2003-04) M/S ETISHA FINANCE & INVESTMENT PVT. LTD. VS. DCIT 4380/4B, KAUSHALYA BUILDING, CENTRAL CIRCLE-25, R.NO. 25, ANSARI ROAD, NEW DELHI DARYAGANJ, NEW DELHI-110002. PAN-AAACE0416H (A PPELLANT) (RESPONDEN T) APPELLANT BY: NONE RESPONDENT BY: SH. S.K.JAIN, SR. DR APPEAL HEARD ON-10.09.2012 ORDER PRONOUNCED ON-14.09.2012 ORDER PER KULBHARAT, JM THE PRESENT APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAI NST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A)-I, NEW DELHI. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF THE APPEAL:- 1. THAT HAVING REGARD TO THE FACTS AND THE CIRCUMS TANCES OF THE CASE, THE HONORABLE CIT(A)-I HAS ERRED IN LAW I N MAKING THE ADDITION OF RS. 16,56,000/- BY INVOKING SECTION 68, WHICH PROVIDES FOR ADDITION OF UNEXPLAINED CREDIT. THE HONORABLE CIT(A)-I HAS NOT CONSTRUED THE PROVIS IONS OF SEC. 68 OF I.T.ACT IN THE SPIRIT OF THE ENACTMENT A ND BY TAKING A NARROW VIEW OF THE STATUTE, HAS DENIED JUSTICE TO T HE APPELLANT. I.T.A .NO.- 5057/DEL/2011 2 THAT IN ANY VIEW OF THE MATTER AND IN ANY CASE ADDI TION OF RS. 16,56,000/- ON THE GROUND OF UNEXPLAINED CREDIT AND GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION MADE DURING THE YEAR IS BAD IN LAW AND AGAINST THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 2. THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ALTER, AMEND AND SUBSTITUTE ANY OF THE ABOVE MENTIONED GROUNDS AND A DD ANY FURTHER GROUNDS BEFORE OR AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF THE APPEAL. 3. NO ONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. IT I S TRANSPIRED FROM THE RECORDS THAT ON THE LAST DATE OF HEARING I.E 17.04. 2012, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAD REQUESTED FOR ADJOURNMENT AND THE SAME WAS ADJOURNED FOR TODAY. THE FACTUM OF HEARING WAS DULY INFORMED TO THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. SINCE THE DATE HEARING WAS INFORMED TO T HE RESPECTIVE PARTIES BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL AND NEITHER THE ASSESSEE NOR H IS COUNSEL HAS APPEARED TODAY, UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, IT IS INFERRED TH AT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED IN PROSECUTING THE PRESENT APPEAL. HENC E, THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION IN VIEW OF THE FOLLOWING DE CISIONS:- 1. IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. B.N.BHATTACHARGEE AND ANOTH ER, REPORTED IN 118 ITR 461 [RELEVANT PAGES 477 & 478] WHEREIN THEIR LORDSHIPS HAVE HELD THAT : THE APPEAL DOES NOT MEAN MERELY FILING OF THE APP EAL 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 MA DE AT THE INSTANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IN DEFAULT MADE FOLLOWING OBSERVATION IN THEIR ORDER: 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. I.T.A .NO.- 5057/DEL/2011 3 3. IN THE CASE OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX VS. MULTI PLAN INDIA (P) LTD.; 38 ITD 320 (DEL, THE APPEAL FILED B Y THE REVENUE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL, WHICH WAS FIXED FOR HEARING. BUT ON THE DATE OF HEARING NOBODY REPRESENTED THE REVENUE/APPE LLANT NOR ANY COMMUNICATION FOR ADJOURNMENT WAS RECEIVED. TH ERE WAS NO COMMUNICATION OF INFORMATION AS TO WHY THE REVEN UE CHOSE TO REMAIN ABSENT ON THAT DATE. THE TRIBUNAL ON THE BASIS OF INHERENT POWERS, TREATED THE APPEAL FILED BY THE RE VENUE AS UN- ADMITTED IN VIEW OF THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 19 OF TH E APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RULES, 1963. 4. HENCE, THE PRESENT APPEAL IS DISMISSED FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION BY APPLYING THE RATIO OF HONBLE CO-ORDINATE BENCH IN THE CASE OF MULTI PLAN (SUPRA). 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED FOR NON- PROSECUTION. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 14.09.2012. SD/- SD/- (S.V.MEHROTRA) (KULBHARAT) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 14/09/2012 *AMIT KUMAR* COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI I.T.A .NO.- 5057/DEL/2011 4