Goel Tempo Finance Pvt. Ltd., Ghaziabad V. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 5139/DEL/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 134 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4263 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 04-05-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 04-05-2011
• Assessment Year: 2001-2002
• Appeal Filed On: 19-11-2010
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MONA MOHANTY

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH C, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI I.P. BANSAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI K.D. RANJAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 5139/DEL/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2001-02 GOEL TEMPO FINANCE PVT. LTD., VS. INCOME TAX OFFIC ER, 188, HAPUR ROAD, WARD 12(2), GHAZIABAD. NEW DELHI. AAACM1144N (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY : SMT. MONA MOHANTY, SR. DR ORDER PER I.P. BANSAL, J.M. THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. IT IS DI RECTED AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY LD. CIT(A) DATED 8 TH SEPTEMBER, 2010 FOR A.Y. 2001-02. 2. NOTICE OF HEARING WAS SENT TO ASSESSEE FOR 4 TH MAY, 2011. THE NOTICE HAS DULY BEEN RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE AS PE R ACKNOWLEDGMENT PLACED ON RECORD. HOWEVER, NONE WAS PRESENT ON FIX ED DATE OF HEARING. IT IS, THEREFORE, PRESUME THAT ASSESSEE IS NOT INTE RESTED IN PROSECUTING THE APPEAL. HENCE, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSE E IS LIABLE TO BE DISMISSED, FOR NON-PROSECUTION, FINDING SUPPORT FRO M THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS: ITA NO. 5139/D/10 2 1. IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. B.N. BHATTACHARGEE AND A NOTHER, REPORTED IN 118 ITR 461 [RELEVANT PAGES 477 & 478] WHEREIN THEIR LO RDSHIPS HAVE HELD THAT: THE APPEAL DOES NOT MEAN MERELY FILING OF THE APPE AL BUT EFFECTIVELY PURSUING IT. 2. IN THE CASE OF ESTATE OF LATE TUKOJIRAO HOLKAR V S. CWT; 223 ITR 480 (M.P.) WHILE DISMISSING THE REFERENCE MADE AT THE I NSTANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IN DEFAULT MADE FOLLOWING OBSERVATION IN T HEIR 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 REFERENCE, THE COURT IS NOT BOUND TO ANSWER THE REFERENCE. 3. IN THE CASE OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX VS. MU LTIPLAN INDIA (P) LTD.; 38 ITD 320 (DEL), THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE B EFORE THE TRIBUNAL, WHICH WAS FIXED FOR HEARING. BUT ON THE DATE OF HE ARING NOBODY REPRESENTED THE REVENUE/APPELLANT NOR ANY COMMUNICA TION FOR ADJOURNMENT WAS RECEIVED. THERE WAS NO COMMUNICATI ON OR INFORMATION AS TO WHY THE REVENUE CHOSE TO REMAIN ABSENT ON THA T DATE. THE TRIBUNAL ON THE BASIS OF INHERENT POWERS, TREATED T HE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE AS UN-ADMITTED IN VIEW OF THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 19 OF THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RULES, 1963. 3. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED, FOR NON-PROSECUTION. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 4.05.11 SD/- SD/- (K.D. RANJAN) (I.P. BANSAL) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDI CIAL MEMBER DATED: 4.5.11 *KAVITA CHOPRA ITA NO. 5139/D/10 3 COPY FORWARDED TO: - 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT TRUE COPY BY ORDER, DEPUTY REGISTRAR