Jashn-E-Bahar, New Delhi V. DIT (E), New Delhi

ITA 5596/DEL/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 52630 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 9 month(s) 4 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-09-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: I
• Next Hearing Date: 13-09-2011
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 09-12-2010
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 80G

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH I, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI U.B.S. BEDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI B.K. HALDAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.5596/DEL/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR: - JASHN-E-BAHAR, VS. DIT(E), 50, S.F.S. APARTMENTS, 3 RD FLOOR, AAYKAR BHAWAN, GAUTAM APARTMENTS, DISTT. CENTRE LAXMI NAGAR, GAUTAM NAGAR, NEW DELHI. NEW DELHI. AAATJ2898P (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY : ROHIT GARG, SR. DR ORDER PER U.B.S. BEDI, J.M. THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE ARISE FROM THE ORDER O F DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION)-DELHI DATED 15.1 0.2010, WHEREBY REFUSAL OF RENEWAL OF EXEMPTION U/S 80G HAS BEEN CHALLENGED. 2. DESPITE SENDING NOTICE SUFFICIENTLY IN ADVANCE F OR A DATE ON 13 TH SEPTEMBER, 2011 NEITHER ASSESSEE NOR HIS ANY AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE ATTENDED WHEN THE CASE WA S CALLED ITA NO. 5596/D/2010 2 UP FOR HEARING. AS SUCH IT IS INFERRED THAT ASSESS EE IS NOT INTEREST IN PROSECUTION OF THE PRESENT APPEAL. 3. HENCE, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS LIAB LE TO BE DISMISSED, FOR NON-PROSECUTION, FINDING SUPPORT FRO M THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS: 1. IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. B.N. BHATTACHARGEE AND ANOTHER, REPORTED IN 118 ITR 461 [RELEVANT PAGES 477 & 478] WHEREIN T HEIR 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 T HE INSTANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IN DEFAULT MADE FOLLOWING OBSERVATION 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 HEARING OF THE REFERENCE, THE COURT IS NOT BOUND TO ANSWER THE REFERENCE. 3. IN THE CASE OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX VS. MU LTIPLAN INDIA (P) LTD.; 38 ITD 320 (DEL), THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REV ENUE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL, WHICH WAS FIXED FOR HEARING. BUT ON THE DATE OF HEARING NOBODY REPRESENTED 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 BA SIS OF INHERENT POWERS, TREATED THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE AS UN-ADMITTED IN VIEW OF THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 19 OF THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RULES, 1963. ITA NO. 5596/D/2010 3 4. AS A RESULT, WE TREAT THIS APPEAL AS UN-ADMITTED AND DISMISS THE SAME IN LIMINE. THIS DECISION WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT SOO N AFTER THE CONCLUSION OF HEARING ON 13 TH SEPTEMBER, 2011. SD/- SD/- (B.K. HALDAR) (U .B.S. BEDI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 13.9.11 *KAVITA COPY FORWARDED TO: - 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT TRUE COPY BY ORDER, DEPUTY REGISTRAR