Dista Laboratories Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi V. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 5244/DEL/2011

• Counselvise Citation: 524420114 RSA 2011
• Duration Of Justice: 9 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-08-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 28-08-2012
• Assessment Year: 2003-2004
• Appeal Filed On: 25-11-2011
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SATPAL SINGH

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC BENCH: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI S.V.MEHROTRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A .NO.5244/DEL/2011 (ASSESSMENT YEAR-2003-04) M/S DISTA LABORATORIES (P) LTD. VS INCOME TAX OFFI CER, A-307, PRIYADARSHINI APARTMENTS, WARD 10(3), 17, I.P.EXTENSION, NEW DELHI NEW DELHI-92. PAN-AABCD0643E ( APPELLANT) (R ESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: NONE RESPONDENT BY: SH. SATPAL SINGH, SR. DR ORDER THIS APPEAL FILED ON 29-11-2011 BY THE ASSESSEE IS AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 06-07-2009 OF THE LD. CIT(A), NEW DELHI FOR A Y 2003-04. 2. THE CASE WAS LISTED FOR HEARING ON VARIOUS OCCAS IONS BUT GOT ADJOURNED AS THE BENCH DID NOT FUNCTION. ON 09.08. 2012, WHEN THE CASE WAS LISTED FOR HEARING, NONE WAS PRESENT TO REPRESENT T HE ASSESSEE AND, THEREFORE, THE HEARING WAS ADJOURNED TO 28.08.2012 AND THE NOT ICE WAS SENT THROUGH REGISTERED AD POST. INSPITE OF THE NOTICE, NONE-AP PEARED ON THE DATE OF HEARING ON 28.08.2012. UNDER SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, I AM OF THE OPINION THAT ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED IN PROSECUTING THE APPEA L, THEREFORE, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED FOR NON PROSECUT ION. THE RELIANCE IS PLACED ON FOLLOWING DECISIONS:- I.T.A .NO.5244/DEL/2011 2 1. IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. B.N.BHATTACHARGEE AND ANOTH ER, REPORTED IN 118 ITR 461 [RELEVANT PAGES 477 & 478] WHEREIN THEIR LORDSHIPS HAVE HELD THAT : THE APPEAL DOES NOT MEAN MERELY FILING OF THE APP EAL 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 TH E INSTANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IN DEFAULT MADE FOLLOWING OBSERVATI ON 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 HEAR ING OF THE REFERENCE, THE COURT IS NOT BOUND TO ANSWER THE REF ERENCE. 3. IN THE CASE OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX VS. MULTI PLAN INDIA (P) LTD.; 38 ITD 320 (DEL, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL, WHICH WAS FIXED FOR HEARING. BUT ON THE DATE OF HEARING NOBODY REPRESENTED THE REVENUE/APPE LLANT NOR ANY COMMUNICATION FOR ADJOURNMENT WAS RECEIVED. TH ERE WAS NO COMMUNICATION OF INFORMATION AS TO WHY THE REVEN UE CHOSE TO REMAIN ABSENT ON THAT DATE. THE TRIBUNAL ON THE BASIS OF INHERENT POWERS, TREATED THE APPEAL FILED BY THE RE VENUE AS UN- ADMITTED IN VIEW OF THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 19 OF TH E APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RULES, 1963. IN THE RESULT, ASSESSEES APPEAL IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 30/08/2012. SD/- (S.V.MEHROTRA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 30/08/2012 *AMIT KUMAR* COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, NEW DELHI I.T.A .NO.5244/DEL/2011 3