Sh. Gulam Shabbir, Saharanpur V. ITO, Deoband

ITA 5208/DEL/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 134 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3708 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 4 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-06-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: I
• Next Hearing Date: 28-06-2011
• Assessment Year: 2003-2004
• Appeal Filed On: 23-11-2010
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MRS BANITA DEVI NAOREM
• Keywords: Reassessment proceedings
• Section: 148

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES: I NEW DELHI BEFORE SMT. DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B.K. HALDAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO: 5208/DEL/2010 A.Y. : 2003-2004 SHRI GULAM SHABBIR VS. ITO PROP. M/S KUMAR SERVICE CENTER VILLAGE DEOBA ND VILLAGE DEOBAND DT. SAHARANPUR DT. SAHARANPUR (APPELLANT) (RESPONDEN T) APPELLANT BY : NONE. RESPONDENT BY : MRS. BANITA DEVI NAOREM, 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 7.9.2010 OF LD.CIT(A), MUJAFFARNAGAR PERTAINING T O A.Y. 2003-04 WHEREIN THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED VARIOUS GROUNDS AG ITATING THE ACTION OF THE A.O. IN REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS U/S 148 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 WHICH HAD BEEN UPHELD BY THE LD.CIT(A) ALONG WITH THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE A.O. AND SUSTAINED BY THE LD.CIT(A). ITA 5208/DEL/2010 PAGE 2 OF 4 A.Y. 2003-2004 SHRI GULAM SHABBIR, DT. SAHARANPUR 2. HOWEVER AT THE TIME OF HEARING NONE WAS PRESENT ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE APPEAL WAS PASSED OVER. EVEN IN THE SECOND ROUND WHEN THE SAID APPEAL WAS CALLED ON BOARD NONE WAS P RESENT NOR ANY REQUEST FOR ADJOURNMENT WAS AVAILABLE. A PERUSAL O F THE RECORD SHOWS THAT THE APPEAL WAS ADJOURNED ON 25 TH JANUARY, 2011 ON THE REQUEST OF THE ASSESSEE. SUBSEQUENTLY AGAIN ON 11 TH MAY, 2011 AND 12 TH MAY, 2011 IT WAS ADJOURNMENT ON THE REQUEST OF THE ASSESSEE. NOTICE FOR THE DATE OF HEARING WAS SENT TO THE ASSESSEE ON 2 ND JUNE, 2011 AT THE ADDRESS GIVEN IN COLUMN NO.10 INDICATED BY THE ASSESSEE. IN VIEW OF THE 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 THEI R LORDSHIPS 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 VS. 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 HEAR ING OF THE REFERENCE, THE COURT IS NOT BOUND TO ANSWER THE REFERENCE. ITA 5208/DEL/2010 PAGE 3 OF 4 A.Y. 2003-2004 SHRI GULAM SHABBIR, DT. SAHARANPUR 3.IN THE CASE OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX VS. MUL TIPLAN INDIA (P) LTD.; 38 ITD 320 (DEL), THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL, WHICH WAS FIXED FOR HE ARING. BUT ON THE DATE OF HEARING NOBODY REPRESENTED THE REVENUE/APPELLANT NOR ANY COMMUNICATION FOR ADJOURN MENT WAS RECEIVED. THERE WAS NO COMMUNICATION OR INFORM ATION AS TO WHY THE REVENUE CHOSE TO REMAIN ABSENT ON THA T DATE. THE TRIBUNAL ON THE BASIS OF INHERENT POWERS, TREAT ED THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE AS UN-ADMITTED 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 FOR NON PROSECUTION. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 28 TH JUNE, 2011 IMMEDIATELY AFTER CONCLUSION OF THE HEARING. SD/- SD/- (B.K. HALDAR ) (DIVA SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 28 TH JUNE, 2011 *MANGA ITA 5208/DEL/2010 PAGE 4 OF 4 A.Y. 2003-2004 SHRI GULAM SHABBIR, DT. SAHARANPUR 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 // C O P Y //