Naresh Sharma, Faridabad V. ITO, Faridabad

ITA 5478/DEL/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7409 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 9 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-06-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC 1
• Next Hearing Date: 22-06-2016
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 09-09-2015
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Condonation of delay

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES : SMC-I : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R.S. SYAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.5478 & 5479/DEL/2015 ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2006-07 & 2005-06 NARESH SHARMA, A-5, NEHRU GROUND, NIT, FARIDABAD. PAN: ALJPS9420Q VS. ITO, WARD-11(1), FARIDABAD. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : NONE DEPARTMENT BY : SHRI DEEPAK GARG, SR. DR DATE OF HEARING : 22.06.2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 22.06.2016 ORDER THESE APPEALS BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DIRECTED AGAINST TWO SEPARATE ORDERS PASSED BY THE CIT(A) ON 05.03.2015 IN RELATI ON TO THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2006-07 & 2005-06. 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 ITA NO.5478 & 5479/DEL/2015 2 TO THE ADDRESS GIVEN IN COLUMN NO.10 OF FORM 36 HAS NOT BEEN RETURNED UNSERVED. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, IT APPEARS THAT T HE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED IN PROSECUTING HIS APPEALS. THE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE, THEREFORE, LIABLE TO BE DISMISSED, FOR NON-PRO SECUTION. 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. 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 ITA NO.5478 & 5479/DEL/2015 3 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. WE ALSO FIND THAT EVEN OTHERWISE, THESE APPEALS ARE TO BE DISMISSED AS THE APPEALS ARE BARRED BY TIME LIMITAT ION AND NO APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING THE APPEALS, ETC . HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEALS FILED BY THE AS SESSEE ARE DISMISSED FOR NON-PROSECUTION. THE DECISION WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 2 2 ND JUNE, 2016. SD/- [R.S. SYAL] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED, 22 ND JUNE, 2016. DK ITA NO.5478 & 5479/DEL/2015 4 COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT AR, ITAT, NEW DELHI.