Victory Realtech Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi V. DCIT, New Delhi

ITA 5534/DEL/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 118 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9326 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 2 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 17-12-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 18-09-2015
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH : C : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.5534/DEL/2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-11 VICTORY REALTECH PVT. LTD., H.NO.139, SAMRAT GALI, KHAJURI KHAS, NEW DELHI. PAN : AACCV4516H VS. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-17, NEW DELHI. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY: SHRI AMIT KATOCH, SR.DR DATE OF HEARING : 17.12.2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 17.12.2018 ORDER PER R.K. PANDA, AM: THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 02 ND MARCH, 2015 OF THE CIT(A)-XXVII, NEW DELHI RELATING TO ASSESSME NT YEAR 2010-11. 2. NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. IT IS SEEN THAT ON THE LAST OCCASION, DUE TO NON-APPEARANCE BY ANYBODY ON BEHALF OF THE ASSES SEE, THE CASE WAS ADJOURNED FOR TODAY. HOWEVER, WHEN THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE WAS CALLED, NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE NOR ANY PETITION SEEKING ANY ADJOUR NMENT WAS FILED. THIS TYPE OF ITA NO.5534/DEL/2015 2 CONDUCT ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE SHOWS THAT IT I S NOT INTERESTED IN PROSECUTING THE APPEAL FILED BY IT. THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSE E IS, THEREFORE, LIABLE TO BE DISMISSED, 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 FOLLOWING OBSERVATION:- 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 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 REVENUE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL, WAS FIXED FOR HEARING. BUT ON THE DATE OF HEARING NOBODY REPRESE NTED 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 BASIS OF INHEREN T POWERS, TREATED THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE AS UNADMITTED IN VIEW OF THE P ROVISION 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. THE DECISION WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 1 7.12.2018. SD/- SD/- (SUCHITRA KAMBLE) (R.K. P ANDA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMFBER ITA NO.5534/DEL/2015 3 DATED: 17 TH DECEMBER, 2018 DK COPY FORWARDED TO 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR ASSTT. REGISTRAR, ITAT, NEW DELHI