Kama Holdings Ltd., Gurgaon V. DCIT, New Delhi

ITA 5672/DEL/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4810 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 10 month(s) 14 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-08-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 07-10-2015
• 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. 5672 /DE L/ 2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010 - 11 M/S. KAMA HOLDINGS LTD., UNITECH CREST, GREENWOOD CITY, BLOCK - C, SECTOR - 45, GURGAON VS. DCIT, CIRCLE - 5(12), NEW DELHI PAN : AAFCS9521A (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY NONE RESPONDENT BY SH. M. BARNWAL, SR.DR DATE OF HEARING 21.08.2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 21.08.2017 ORDER PER O.P. KANT , A. M. : THIS APPEAL, BY THE ASSESSEE, IS DIRECTED AGAINST ORDER OF LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL) - 5 , DELHI , DATED 14.08.2015 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010 - 11 . 2. IN THIS CASE, NOTICE WAS SENT TO THE ASSESSEE FOR HEARING BY REGD. AD POST FOR 21.08 .2017 AT THE ADDRESS MENTIONED IN FORM NO. 36 VIDE COLUMN NO. 10, BUT 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 IN COME - TAX (APPELLATE TRIBUNAL) RULES, 1963 AS WERE 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. 2 ITA NO .5672/DEL/2015 3. THE HON'BLE MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF ESTATE OF LATE TUKOJIRAO HOLKAR 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 PAP ER 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 O F THE MEMO OF APPEAL BUT EFFECTIVELY PURSUING THE SAME. 6. RESPECTFULLY 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 ORDER 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 1 S T AUGUST , 201 7 . S D / - S D / - ( BHAVNESH SAINI ) ( O.P. KANT ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 2 1 S T 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