M/s Ram Dev Rice Private Ltd., Karnal V. Addl. CIT, Karnal

ITA 5196/DEL/2011

• Counselvise Citation: 519620114 RSA 2011
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-01-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Next Hearing Date: 24-01-2012
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 22-11-2011
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: B R R KUMAR

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES: F NEW DELHI BEFORE SMT. DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A.N. PAHUJA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO: 5196/DEL/2011 A.Y. : 2008-2009 M/S RAM DEV RICE P.LTD. VS. ACIT, KARNAL RANGE, KAR NAL VPO DAHA, KARNAL (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : NONE. RESPONDENT BY : SH. B.R.R.KUMAR, SR.D.R. O R D E R PER DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER THIS IS THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 17.8.2011 OF CIT(A), KARNAL PERTAINING TO A.Y. 20 08-09 WHEREIN VARIOUS GROUNDS HAVE BEEN RAISED. HOWEVER AT THE TIME O F HEARING NO ONE WAS PRESENT ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. THE APPEAL WAS CALLED OUT FOR HEARING AND PASSED OVER TWICE AND EVEN IN THE THIRD ROUND A LSO NO ONE WAS PRESENT NOR ANY REQUEST FOR ADJOURNMENT HAS BEEN PL ACED BEFORE THE BENCH. IT IS ALSO SEEN THAT THE APPEAL BY THE A SSESSEE IS TIME BARRED BY 6 DAYS AS PER THE NOTICE ISSUED BY REGISTRY THE ASS ESSEE HAS NOT CARED TO EXPLAIN THE DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE PECULIAR FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSES SEE IS NOT INTERESTED IN PROSECUTING THE APPEAL, HENCE, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS LIABLE TO BE UNADMITTED/DISMISSED, FOR NON-PROSECUT ION. IN OUR ABOVE VIEW, WE FIND SUPPORT FROM THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS: 1. IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. B.N. BHATTACHARGEE AND ANOTH ER, 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 2. IN THE CASE OF ESTATE OF LATE TUKOJIRAO HOLKAR VS. CWT; 223 ITR 480 (M.P.) WHILE DISMISSING THE REFERENCE MADE AT THE INSTANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IN DEFAULT MADE FOLLOWING OBSERVATION IN THEIR 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 R EFERENCE, THE COURT IS NOT BOUND TO ANSWER THE REFERENCE. 3. IN THE CASE OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX VS. M ULTIPLAN INDIA (P) LTD.; 38 ITD 320 (DEL), THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE BEFO RE THE TRIBUNAL, WHICH WAS FIXED FOR HEARING. BUT ON THE DATE OF HEARING NOBO DY REPRESENTED THE REVENUE/APPELLANT NOR ANY COMMUNICATION FOR ADJOURN MENT WAS RECEIVED. THERE WAS NO COMMUNICATION OR INFORMATION AS TO WHY THE REVENUE CHOSE TO REMAIN ABSENT ON THAT DATE. THE TRIBUNAL ON THE BA SIS OF INHERENT POWERS, TREATED THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE AS UN-ADMIT TED IN VIEW OF THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 19 OF THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RUL ES, 1963. 3. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THESE DECISIONS (SUPRA), THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESEE IS TREATED AS UNADMITTED/DISMISSED FOR NON PROSECUTION. WE MAY LIKE TO CLARIFY THAT SUBSEQUENTLY IF THE ASSESS EE MOVES AN APPROPRIATE APPLICATION FOR RECALL OF THE ORDER AND EXPLAIN THE REASONS FOR NON APPEARANCE AND IF THE BENCH IS SO SATISFIED, TH E ORDER MAY BE RECALLED FOR THE PURPOSE OF ADJUDICATION OF THE APP EAL. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESS EE IS DISMISSED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 24 TH JANUARY,2012 IMMEDIATELY AFTER CONCLUSION OF THE HEARING. SD/- SD/- (A.N.PAHUJA) (DIVA SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DT. 24 TH JANUARY,2012 *MANGA COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT; 2.RESPONDENT; 3.CIT; 4.CI T(A); 5.DR; 6.GUARD FILE BY ORDER DY. REGISTRAR