Mohd. Nausad Ahmed & Sons AOP, Saharanpur V. ITO, Saharanpur

ITA 528/DEL/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 134 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3510 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 14-07-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Next Hearing Date: 23-02-2016
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 31-01-2011
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: A K MONGA

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: I NEW DELHI BEFORE SMT. DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B.C. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A NO. 527/DEL/11 NAUSAD AHMED, S/O SHRI BHURA AHMED, VILL. & P.O. GHOGREKI SADAK DUDHLI, KAILASHPUR, SAHARANPUR AHBPA7482L VS. ITO WARD 2, SAHARANPUR. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) AND I.T.A NO. 528/DEL/11 MOHD. NAUSAD AHMED & SONS AOP, VILL. & P.O. GHOGREKI SADAK DUDHLI, KAILASHPUR, SAHARANPUR 247001 (U.P.) AAAAM8640D VS. ITO WARD 2, SAHARANPUR. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: NONE RESPONDENT BY: SHRI A.K. MONGA, SR. DR. ORDER PER DIVA SINGH, JM: THESE ARE APPEALS FIELD BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST SE PARATE ORDERS DATED 7.9.2010 IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEES BY THE CIT(A) MUZ ZAFARNAGAR ON VARIOUS GROUNDS CHALLENGING THE ADDITIONS SUSTAINED BY THE CIT(A). HOWEVER, AT THE TIME OF HEARING NO ONE WAS PRESENT ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. THE A PPEALS WERE PASSED OVER IN THE FIRST ROUND AND YET AGAIN IN THE SECOND ROUND ALSO NO ONE WAS PRESENT WHEN THEY ITA NO. 527,528/DEL/11 2 WERE FINALLY CALLED OUT IN THE THIRD ROUND NO ONE W AS PRESENT NOR ANY REQUEST FOR ADJOURNMENT HAS BEEN RECEIVED. IT IS SEEN THAT ON AN EARLIER DATE WHEN THE APPEALS WERE FIXED FOR HEARING ON 31 ST MARCH, 2011 NO ONE WAS PRESENT ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY THE APPEALS WERE ADJOURNED. IT IS SEEN THAT NOTICE FOR HEARING HAS BEEN ISSUED ON 7 TH JUNE, 2011 TO THE ASSESSEE AT THE ADDRESS MENTION ED IN COLUMN NO. 10 GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE MEMO O F APPEALS FIXING THE DATE OF HEARING ON 14.7.2011 2. ACCORDINGLY, IN THE AFOREMENTIONED PECULIAR FACT S AND CIRCUMSTANCES, WE HAVE NO ALTERNATIVE BUT TO DISMISS THE PRESENT APPEAL FO R NON PROSECUTION. IN OUR ABOVE VIEW, WE FIND SUPPORT FROM THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS :- 1. IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. B.N. BHATTACHARGEE AND AN OTHER, 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 APP EAL BUT EFFECTIVELY PURSUING IT. 2. IN THE CASE OF ESTATE OF LATE LATE TUKOJI RAO HO LKAR VS. CWT; 223 ITR 480 (MP), WHILE DISMISSING THE REFERENCE MADE AT THE IN STANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IN DEFAULT MADE FOLLOWING OBSERVATION IN THEIR ORD ER : IF THE PARTY, AT WHOSE INSTANCE THE REFERENCE IS M ADE, FAILS TO APPEAR AT THE HEARING, OR FAILS IN TAKING STEPS FOR PREPARATI ON OF THE PAPER BOOKS SO AS TO ENABLE HEARING OF THE REFERENCE, THE COURT IS NOT BOUND TO ANSWER THE REFERENCE. 3 .IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. MULTIPLAN (INDIA) PVT. LTD. 38 ITD 320 (DEL) THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL, WH ICH WAS FIXED FOR HEARING. BUT ON THE DATE OF HEARING NOBODY REPRESEN TED THE REVENUE /APPELLANT NOR ANY COMMUNICATION FOR ADJOURNMENT WA S RECEIVED. THERE WAS NO COMMUNICATION OR INFORMATION AS TO WHY THE REVENUE CHOSE TO REMAIN ABSENT ON THAT DATE. THE TRIBUNAL ON THE BAS IS 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 ASSESSEE IS TREATED AS UNADMITTED / DISMISSED FOR N ON PROSECUTION. WE MAY LIKE TO ITA NO. 527,528/DEL/11 3 CLARIFY THAT SUBSEQUENTLY IF THE ASSESSEE MOVES AN APPROPRIATE APPLICATION FOR RECALL OF THE ORDER AND EXPLAIN THE REASONS FOR NON APPEAR ANCE AND IF THE BENCH IS SO SATISFIED, THE ORDER MAY BE RECALLED FOR THE PURPOS E OF ADJUDICATION OF THE APPEAL. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSE E ARE DISMISSED FOR NON PROSECUTION. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 14.7.2011 IMMEDIATE LY AFTER CONCLUSION OF THE HEARING. SD/- SD/- [B.C. MEENA] [DIVA SINGH] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 14.7.2011 VEENA COPY FORWARDED TO: - 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT TRUE COPY BY ORDER, DEPUTY REGISTRA R, ITAT