Sh. Raj Kumar Nanda, Karnal V. CIT, Karnal

ITA 5664/DEL/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4956 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 10 month(s) 18 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-08-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 06-10-2015
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: M BARNWAL

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH : E , NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. BHAVNESH SAINI , JUDICIAL M EMBER AND SH. O.P. KANT , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 5664 /DE L/ 2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010 - 11 SH. RAJ KUMAR NANDA, PROP. M/S. SUPREME ELECTRICALS, RAILWAY ROAD, KARNAL VS. CIT, KARNAL PAN : AAUPN6211C (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY NONE RESPONDENT BY SH. M. BARNWAL, SR.DR DATE OF HEARING 24.08.2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 24.08.2017 ORDER PER O.P. KANT , A. M. : THIS APPEAL, BY THE ASSESSEE, IS DIRECTED AGAINST ORDER OF LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , KARNAL , DATED 31. 12.2014 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010 - 11 . 2. WHEN THE CASE CAME UP FOR HEARING ON 21.08.2017, ON THE WRITTEN REQUEST OF THE ASSESSEE S COUNSEL, THE CASE WAS ADJOURNED FOR 24.08.2017 WITH THE DIRECTION TO TAKE STEPS REGARDING LIMITATION OF APPEAL. NEXT DATE OF HEARING I.E. 24.08.2017 WAS INFORMED TO BOTH THE PARTIES IN THE OPEN COURT. I N SPITE OF THIS , TODAY I.E. 24.08.2017 NEITHER THE ASSESSEE NOR HIS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE ATTENDED THE HEARING AND ALSO NOT FILED ANY APPLICATION FOR ADJOURNMENT. IT IS, THUS, INFERRED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED IN PROSECUTION OF HIS APPEAL, THEREFORE, IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, NO USEFUL PURPOSE WOULD BE SERVED TO SEND THE NOTICE AGAIN AND AGAIN ON THE SAME ADDRESS. 3. CONSIDERING THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND KEEPING IN VIEW THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 19(2) OF THE INCOME - TAX (APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ) RULES, 1963 AS WERE 2 ITA NO . 5664/DEL/2015 CONSIDERED IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. MULTIPLAN INDIA LTD., (38 ITD 320)(DEL), THE ASSESSEE S APPEAL IS LIABLE TO BE DISMISSED FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION. 3. THE HON'BLE MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF ESTATE OF LATE TUKOJIRAO HO LKAR VS. CWT (223 ITR 480) HAS HELD AS UNDER: 'IF THE PARTY, AT WHOSE INSTANCE THE REFERENCE IS MADE, 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. ' 4. SIMILARLY, HON'BLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF NEW DIWAN OIL MILLS VS. CIT (2008) 296 ITR 495) RETURNED THE REFERENCE UNANSWERED SINCE THE ASSESSEE REMAINED ABSENT AND THERE WAS NOT ANY ASSISTANCE FROM THE ASSESSEE. 5. THEIR LORDSHIPS OF HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. B. BHATTACHARGEE & ANOTHER (118 ITR 461 AT PAGE 477 - 478) HELD THAT THE APPEAL DOES NOT MEAN, MERE FILING OF THE MEMO OF APPEAL BUT EFFECTIVELY PURSUING THE SAME. 6. RESPECT FULLY FOLLOWING THE VIEW TAKEN IN THE CASES CITED SUPRA, WE DISMISS THE ABOVE APPEAL FOR NON - PROSECUTION. BEFORE PARTING, WE ADD THAT IN CASE THE ASSESSEE IS SERIOUS IN PURSUING THE APPEAL FILED, THEN IT WOULD BE AT LIBERTY TO PRAY FOR A RECALL OF THIS ORD ER BY MOVING AN APPROPRIATE APPLICATION. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED FOR NON - PROSECUTION. THE DECISION IS PRONOUN CED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 2 4 T H AUGUST , 201 7 . S D / - S D / - ( BHAVNESH SAINI ) ( O.P. KANT ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 2 4 T H AUGUST , 201 7 . RK / - (D.T.D) COPY FORWARDED TO: 1 . APPELLANT 2 . RESPONDENT 3 . CIT 4 . CIT(A) 5 . DR ASST. REGISTRAR, ITAT, NEW DELHI