Sh. Ramesh Sharma, New Delhi V. DCIT, New Delhi

ITA 5174/DEL/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 119 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0023 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 3 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 10-12-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 17-08-2015
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: NAINA SOIN KAPIL

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH : D , NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. BHAVNESH SAINI , JUDICIAL M EMBER AND SH. O.P. KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO . 5174 /DE L/ 2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011 - 12 SH. RAMESH SHARMA, 19, POORVI MARG, 3 RD FLOOR, VASANT VIHAR, NEW DELHI VS. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 16, NEW DELHI PAN : AKYPS3876J (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY NONE RESPONDENT BY SMT. NAINA SOIN KAPIL, SR.DR ORDER PER O.P. KANT, AM: THIS APPEAL, BY THE ASSESSEE, IS DIRECTED AGAINST ORDER OF CIT(A) - XXXII , NEW DELHI, DATED 29.09.2014 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011 - 12 . 2. IN THIS CASE, NOTICE WAS SENT TO THE ASSESSEE BY RPAD ON 18.10.2018 AT THE ADDRESS MENTIONED IN FORM NO. 36, VIDE COLUMN NO. 10, FIXING THE CASE FOR HEARING ON 10.12.2018. IN SPITE OF THIS, TODAY I.E. ON 10.12.2018, WHEN THE CASE WAS CALLED UPON, NONE TURNED UP ON BEHAL F OF THE ASSESSEE, NOR ANY APPLICATION FOR ADJOURNMENT HAS BEEN FILED. AS POINTED OUT BY THE REGISTRY , THE APPEAL IS TIME BARRED BY 239 DAYS, FOR WHICH NO CONDONATION APPLICATION HAS BEEN FILED TILL THEN . IT IS, THUS, INFERRED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INT ERESTED IN PROSECUTION OF HIS APPEAL. 3. CONSIDERING THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND KEEPING IN VIEW THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 19(2) OF THE INCOME - TAX (APPELLATE 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: DATE OF HEARING 10.12.2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 10.12.2018 2 ITA NO. 5174/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, THE 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 SAME. 7. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE VIEW TAKEN IN THE CASES CITED SUPRA, WE DISMISS THE APPEAL FOR NON - PROSECUTION. BEFORE PA RTING, WE ADD THAT IN CASE THE ASSESSEE IS SERIOUS IN PURSUING THE APPEAL FILED, THEN HE WOULD BE AT LIBERTY TO PRAY FOR A RECALL OF THIS ORDER BY MOVING AN APPROPRIATE PETITION AND ALSO BY TAKING APPROPRIATE ACTION TO CORRECT THE DEFECTS POINTED OUT. THE CO - ORDINATE BENCH CONSIDERING THE PETITION, IF SO SATISFIED WITH THE EXPLANATION AND THE ACTIONS OF CURING THE DEFECTS, MAY RECALL THIS ORDER. 8. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED FOR NON - PROSECUTION. THE DECISION IS PRONOUN CED IN TH E OPEN COURT ON 10 TH DECEMBER , 201 8 . S D / - S D / - ( BHAVNESH SAINI ) ( O.P. KANT ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 1 0 T H DECEMBER , 201 8 . RK / - COPY FORWARDED TO: 1 . APPELLANT 2 . RESPONDENT 3 . CIT 4 . CIT(A) 5 . DR ASST. REGISTRAR, ITAT, NEW DELHI