M/s. Pearl Drinks Ltd., New Delhi V. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 5060/DEL/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 125 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6829 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 11 month(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 17-07-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 07-08-2015
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH : B , NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. H.S. SIDHU , JUDICIAL M EMBER AND SH. T.S. KAPOOR , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO .5060 /DE L/ 2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011 - 12 PEARL DRINKS LTD., 702, ANSAL BHAWAN, 16, K.G. MARG, NEW DELHI VS. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 07, JHANDEWALAN, NEW DELHI PAN : AAACP1210C ( APPELLANT ) (RESPONDENT) ORDER PER T.S. KAPOOR , A. M. : THIS APPEAL, BY THE ASSESSEE, IS DIRECTED AGAINST ORDER OF CIT(A) - 24 , NEW DELHI, DATED 25.05.2015 PERTAINING TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011 - 12. 2. IN THIS CASE, NOTICE WAS SENT TO THE ASSESSEE BY RPAD ON 22.05.2018 AT THE ADDRESS MENTIONED IN FORM NO. 36, FIXING THE CASE FOR HEARING ON 17.07.2018 . DESPITE THIS , TODAY I.E. 17.07.2018 , WHEN THE CASE WAS CALLED UPON, NO ONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE AS SESSEE, NOR ANY APPLICATION FOR ADJOURNMENT HAS BEEN FILED. IT IS, THUS, INFERRED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED IN PROSECUTION OF ITS APPEAL. 3. CONSIDERING THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND KEEPING IN VIEW THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 19(2) OF THE INCOME - TAX (A PPELLATE TRIBUNAL) RULES, 1963 AS WERE CONSIDERED IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. MULTIPLAN INDIA LTD., (38 ITD 320)(DEL), THE ASSESSEE S APPEAL IS LIABLE TO BE DISMISSED FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION. 4. THE HON'BLE MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF ESTATE OF LATE TUKOJIRAO HOLKAR VS. CWT (223 ITR 480) HAS HELD AS UNDER: APPELLANT BY NONE RESPONDENT BY MS. RACHNA SINGH, CIT(DR) DATE OF HEARING 17.07.2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 17.07.2018 2 ITA NO. 5060/DEL/2015 'IF THE PARTY, AT WHOSE INSTANCE THE REFERENCE IS MADE, FAILS 'TO APPEAR AT THE HEARING, OR FAILS IN TAKING STEPS FOR PREPARATION OF THE PAPER BOOKS SO AS TO ENABLE HEARING OF THE REFERENCE, T HE COURT IS NOT BOUND TO ANSWER THE REFERENCE. ' 5. 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 ASSISTANCE FROM THE ASSESSEE. 6. THEIR LORDSHIPS OF HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. B. BHATTACHARGEE & ANOTHER (118 ITR 461 AT PAGE 477 - 478) HELD THAT THE APPEAL DOES NOT MEAN, MERE FILING OF THE MEMO OF APPEAL BUT EFFECTIVELY PURSUING THE S AME. 7. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE VIEW TAKEN IN THE CASES CITED SUPRA, WE DISMISS THE APPEAL FOR NON - PROSECUTION. BEFORE PARTING, WE ADD THAT IN CASE THE ASSESSEE IS SERIOUS IN PURSUING THE APPEAL FILED, THEN IT WOULD BE AT LIBERTY TO PRAY FOR A RECALL O F THIS ORDER BY MOVING AN APPROPRIATE PETITION AND ALSO BY TAKING APPROPRIATE ACTION TO CORRECT THE DEFECTS , IF ANY, POINTED OUT. THE CO - ORDINATE BENCH CONSIDERING THE PETITION, IF SO SATISFIED WITH THE EXPLANATION AND THE ACTIONS OF CURING THE DEFECTS, MA Y RECALL THIS ORDER. THE DECISION IS PRONOUN CED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 17 TH JULY , 201 8 . SD/ - SD/ - ( H.S. SIDH U ) ( T.S. KAPOOR ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 17 TH JULY , 201 8 . RK / - COPY FORWARDED TO: 1 . APPELLANT 2 . RESPONDENT 3 . CIT 4 . CIT(A) 5 . DR ASST. REGISTRAR, ITAT, NEW DELHI