Smt. Preeti Srivastava, New Delhi V. ITO, Ghaziabad

ITA 5200/DEL/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3353 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 year(s) 1 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-11-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Next Hearing Date: 14-06-2017
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 08-10-2012
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES : F : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R.S. SYAL, VICE PRESIDENT AND SMT BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.5200/DEL/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 PREETI SRIVASTAVA, FLAT NO.A-803, PLOT NO.10, BRINDAVAN GARDEN, SECTOR-12, DWARKA, NEW DELHI. PAN: BHDPS1463G VS. ITO, WARD 2(1), GHAZIABAD. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : NONE DEPARTMENT BY : SHRI ATIQ AHMAD, SR. DR DATE OF HEARING : 20.11.2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 20.11.2017 ORDER PER R.S. SYAL, VP: THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAI NST THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT(A) ON 27.07.2012 IN RELATION TO T HE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10. ITA NO.5200/DEL/2012 2 2. WHEN THE MATTER WAS CALLED UP FOR HEARING TOD AY, NO ONE HAS APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE HA S NOT FILED ANY ADJOURNMENT APPLICATION ALSO. THE NOTICE OF HEARING SENT TO THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN RETURNED UNSERVED. THE MATTER GOT ADJO URNED MANY A TIMES EARLIER AT THE REQUEST OF THE ASSESSEE. IN THESE CI RCUMSTANCES, IT APPEARS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED IN PROSECUTING HER APPEAL. THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS, THEREFORE, LIABLE TO BE D ISMISSED, FOR NON- PROSECUTION. OUR ABOVE VIEW FINDS SUPPORT FROM THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS:- 1. CIT VS. B.N. BHATTACHARGEE & ANR., 118 ITR 461, WHE REIN THEIR LORDSHIPS HAVE HELD: THE APPEAL DOES NOT MEAN MERELY FILING OF THE APPE AL BUT EFFECTIVELY PURSUING IT. 2. ESTATE OF LATE TUKOJIRAO HOLKAR VS. CWT, 223 ITR 4 80 (M.P.), WHEREIN, WHILE DISMISSING THE REFERENCE MADE AT THE INSTANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IN DEFAULT, THEIR LORDSHIPS MADE THE F OLLOWING OBSERVATION:- 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 REFERENCE, THE COURT IS NOT BOUND TO ANSWER THE REFERENCE. ITA NO.5200/DEL/2012 3 3. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX VS. MULTIPLAN INDIA (P. ) LTD, 38 ITD 320 (DEL.),WHEREIN THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVE NUE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL, WAS FIXED FOR HEARING. BUT ON THE DA TE OF HEARING NOBODY REPRESENTED THE REVENUE/APPELLANT NOR ANY COMMUNICATION FOR ADJOURNMENT 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 UNADMITTED IN VIEW OF THE PROVISION OF RULE 19 OF THE INCOME-TAX (APPELLATE TRIBUNAL) RULES, 1963. 3. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASS ESSEE IS DISMISSED FOR NON- PROSECUTION. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 20 TH NOVEMBER, 2017. SD/- SD/- [BEENA PILLAI] [R.S. SYAL] JUDICIAL MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT DATED, 20 TH NOVEMBER, 2017. DK ITA NO.5200/DEL/2012 4 COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT AR, ITAT, NEW DELHI.