M/s Shipra Estate Ltd., Ghaziabad V. Addl. CIT, Ghaziabad

ITA 5588/DEL/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 135 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0455 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 14-02-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Next Hearing Date: 01-01-2015
• Assessment Year: 2003-2004
• Appeal Filed On: 09-12-2010
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: N K CHAND

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH `G : NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI A.D. JAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI K.D. RANJAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.5588/DEL./2010 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2003-04) M/S SHIPRA ESTATE LTD., VS. ADDL. CIT, RANGE I, C-36, PATEL NAGAR II, GHAZIABAD. GHAZIABAD, (PAN/GIR NO.AACCS6116J) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : NONE REVENUE BY : SHRI N.K. CHAND, DR ORDER PER A.D. JAIN: JM THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE FOR AY 2003-0 4 ARISES OUT OF THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A)- GHAZIABAD, IN WHICH SEVERAL GROUNDS HAVE BEEN RAISE D: 2. AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF THE APPEAL, NEITHER TH E ASSESSEE NOR ANY OF HIS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE WERE PRESENT IN SPITE OF THE FACT TH AT THE NOTICE OF HEARING WAS ISSUED BY POST TO THE ASSESSEE. IT IS, THEREFORE, INFERRED T HAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED IN PURSUING THE APPEAL. THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS, THEREFO RE, DISMISSED AS UNADMITTED FOLLOWING THE RATIO OF DECISIONS RENDERED IN THE FOLLOWING CA SES: 1. IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. B.N. BHATTACHARGEE AND AN OTHER, REPORTED IN 118 ITR 461 [RELEVANT PAGES 477 & 478], WHEREIN THEIR 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 V S. CWT; 223 ITR 480 (M.P.) WHILE DISMISSING THE REFERENCE MADE AT THE INSTANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IN DEFAULT MADE FOLLOWING OBSERVATION IN THEIR ORDER:- IF THE PARTY, AT WHOSE INSTANCE THE R EFERENCE IS MADE, 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. 2 3. SIMILAR VIEW HAS BEEN TAKEN BY ITAT, DELHI BENCH IN THE CASE OF MULTIPLAN INDIA (P).) LTD. REPORTED IN 38 ITD 320 (DEL.). 3. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE PRECEDENT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED IN LIMINE FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION. HOWEVER, IT IS CLARIFIED THAT IF ASSESSEE LATER ON EXPLAINS THE REASONS FOR NON-APPEARANCE AND THE BEN CH IS SO SATISFIED, THE ORDER PASSED EX-PARTE MAY BE RECALLED FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION OF THE APPEAL. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION. 5. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON THE CONCLUSION OF THE HEARING ON 14.02.2011. SD/- SD/- (K.D. RANJAN) (A.D. JAIN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED, FEB. 14, 2011. SKB COPY FORWARDED TO: 1.APPELLANT 2.RESPONDENT 3.CIT 4.CIT(A), GHAZIABAD 5.CIT(ITAT), NEW DELHI. AR/ITAT