M/s Contitech India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi V. DCIT, New Delhi

ITA 5088/DEL/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7049 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 year(s) 10 month(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-09-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 21-09-2016
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 18-11-2010
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL

Judgement Text

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH B : NEW DELHI BEFORE SMT DIVA SINGH , JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I TA NO .5088/DEL/2010 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006 - 07 ) CONTITECH INDIA PVT. LTD, (FORMERLY KNOWN AS ROULUNDS CODAN (INDIA) LTD, MILAN CINEMA, KARAMPURA, NEW DELHI PAN:AABCR6921P VS. DCIT, CIRCLE - 3(1), NEW DELHI (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) I TA NO .5222/DEL/2011 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007 - 08 ) CONTITECH INDIA PVT. LTD, (FORMERLY KNOWN AS ROULUNDS CODAN (INDIA) LTD, MILAN CINEMA, KARAMPURA, NEW DELHI PAN:AABCR6921P VS. ACIT, CIRCLE - 3(1), NEW DELHI (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : NONE REVENUE BY: SH. ANIL KUMAR SHARMA, SR. DR DATE OF HEARING 21/09/ 2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 21 / 0 9 /2016 O R D E R PER BENCH . 1. THESE ARE THE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD ASSESSING OFFICER FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006 - 07 AND 2007 - 08. 2. TODAY, I.E. ON 21 . 09 .2016 WHEN THESE CASES WERE CALLED ON BOARD, NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE NOR ANY REQUEST FOR ADJOURNMENT HAS BEEN FILED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. IT SEEMS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED IN PROSECUTING THE APPEAL; HENCE, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS LIABLE TO BE UN - ADMITTED AND DISMISSED FOR NON - PROSECUTION. IN OUR ABOVE VIEW, WE FIND SUPPORT FROM THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS: - (I). IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. B.N. BHATTACHARGEE & ANOTHER 118 ITR 461 (RELEVANT PAGES 477 & 478) WHEREIN THEIR LORDSHIPS HAVE HELD THAT THE APPEAL DOES NOT MEAN MERELY FILING OF APPEAL BUT EFFE CTIVELY PURSUING IT. PAGE 2 OF 2 (II). IN THE CASE OF ESTATE OF LATE TUKOJI RAO HOLKER VS. CWT 223 ITR 480 (MP) WHILE DISMISSING THE REFERENCE MADE AT THE INSTANCE OF ASSESSEE IN DEFAULT MADE FOLLOWING OBSERVATIONS IN THEIR ORDER: 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, THIS COURT IS NOT BOUND TO ANSWER THE REFERENCE. (III). IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. MULTIPLAN INDIA PVT. L TD. 38 ITD 320 (DEL). THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL WHICH WAS FIXED FOR HEARING BUT ON THE DATE OF HEARING NOBODY REPRESENTED THE REVENUE / APPLICANT, NOR ANY COMMUNICATION FOR ADJOURNMENT WAS RECEIVED. THERE WAS NO COMMUNICATION OR I NFORMATION AS TO WHY REVENUE CHOOSE TO REMAIN ABSENT ON THAT DATE. THE TRIBUNAL ON THE BASIS OF INHERENT POWER TREATED THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE AS UN - ADMITTED IN VIEW OF RULE 19 OF THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RULES, 1963. 3. THEREFORE, KEEPING IN VIEW THE A BOVE, THE APPEAL S FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED FOR NON - PROSECUTION. THE ASSESSEE, IF SO ADVISED, SHALL BE FREE TO MOVE THIS TRIBUNAL PRAYING FOR RECALLING OF THIS ORDER AND EXPLAINING THE REASONS FOR NON - COMPLIANCE ETC. AND IF THE BENCH IS SO SATISFIED ABOUT THE REASONS ETC, THEN THIS ORDER SHALL BE RECALLED. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL S FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 2 1 / 0 9 /2016 . - S D / - - SD / - ( DIVA SINGH ) (PRASHANT MAHARISHI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 2 1 / 0 9 / 2016 A K KEOT COPY FORWARDED TO 1. APPLICANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR:ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, NEW DELHI