Shri Vanijay Capsec Pvt. Ltd., Delhi V. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 5103/DEL/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 86469 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 4 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 05-01-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: H
• Next Hearing Date: 05-01-2015
• Assessment Year: 2002-2003
• Appeal Filed On: 04-09-2013
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: J P CHANDRAKAR

Judgement Text

ITA NO. 5103/DEL/2013 ASSTT. YEAR: 2002-03 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH H NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R.S. SYAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI A.T. VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 5103/DEL/2013 ASSESSMENT YE AR: 2002-03 SHIV VANIJYA CAPSEC PVT. LTD. VS. ITO IV/928, CHHOTTA CHIPPIWAR WARD-8 (2) CHAWRI BAZAR, NEW DELHI. DELHI 110 006. (PAN AABCS2773E) (APPELLANT) (R ESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: NONE RESPONDENT BY: SHRI J.P. CHANDRA KAR, SR. DR O R D E R PER A.T. VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER THE ABOVE APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGA INST THE ORDER OF CIT(A)-XI, NEW DELHI DATED 10.6.2013 PERTAINING TO AY 2002-03. 2. THIS APPEAL WAS FIXED FOR HEARING TODAY ON 5.1 .2015 AND WE FIND THAT NO ONE WAS PRESENT ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE NOR ANY R EQUEST FOR ADJOURNMENT WAS PLACED BEFORE THE BENCH. ITA NO. 5103/DEL/2013 ASSTT. YEAR: 2002-03 2 3. IT APPEARS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED I N GETTING THE APPEAL PROSECUTED. HONBLE MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF TU KOJIRAO HOLKAR VS CWT 223 ITR 480 (MP) , WHILE DISMISSING THE REFERENCE MADE AT THE INSTANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IN DEFAULT, MADE THE F OLLOWING OBSERVATIONS:- IF THE PARTY AT WHOSE INSTANCE, THE REFERENCE IS MADE, FAILS TO APPEAR AT THE HEARING OR FAILS IN TA KING STEPS FOR PREPARATION OF THE PAPER BOOKS SO AS TO ENABLE HEARING OF THE REFERENCE, THE COURT IS NOT BOUND TO ANSWER THE REFERENCE. 4. ITAT DELHI BENCH D IN THE CASE OF CIT VS MULTIPLAN INDIA (P) LTD. 38 ITD 320 OBSERVED THAT THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 19 STATE THAT MERE ISSUE OF NOTICE COULD NOT BY ITSELF MEAN THAT THE APPEAL HAD BEEN A DMITTED. THIS RULE ONLY CLARIFIES THE POSITION. THERE MIGHT BE VARIOUS REAS ONS WITH THE APPELLANT TO REMAIN ABSENT AT THE TIME OF HEARING. ONE OF THE R EASONS MIGHT ALSO BE A DESIRE OR ABSENCE OF NEED TO PROSECUTE THE APPEAL OR LIABI LITY TO ASSIST THE TRIBUNAL IN A PROPER MANNER OR TO TAKE BENEFIT OF VAGARIES OF LAW . 5. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE PRECEDENTS, THE APPEA L FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS TREATED AS UN-ADMITTED AND DISMISSED IN LIMINE. WE MAY LIKE TO CLARIFY THAT SUBSEQUENTLY, IF THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINS THE REASONS FOR NON-APPEARANCE AND IF THE BENCH IS SO SATISFIED, THE MATTER MAY BE RECALLED F OR THE PURPOSE OF ADJUDICATION OF THE APPEAL. ITA NO. 5103/DEL/2013 ASSTT. YEAR: 2002-03 3 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED FOR NON- PROSECUTION. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 5 TH JANUARY, 2015. SD/- SD/- (R.S. SYAL) (A.T. VARKEY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEM BER DATED 5 TH JANUARY, 2015 VEENA COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT(A) 4. CIT 5. DR BY ORDER DEPUTY REGISTRAR, ITAT