M/s. Global Foods Ltd., New Delhi V. DCIT, New Delhi

ITA 5748/DEL/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7344 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 11 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 09-10-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 09-10-2014
• Assessment Year: 2002-2003
• Appeal Filed On: 09-11-2012
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SATPAL SINGH

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH C, NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI R. P. YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI T.S. KAPOOR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO.5748 /DEL/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2002-03 M/S. GLOBAL FOODS LTD., VS. CIT(A)-IX, THROUGH SH. RASIK MAKKAR, CA, NEW DELHI N-59, GREATER KAILASH-I, NEW DELHI-110 048 GIR / PAN:AAACG0157H (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY : SHRI SATPAL SINGH, SR. DR ORDER PER T.S. KAPOOR, AM: THIS IS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE O RDER OF LD. CIT(A) DATED 26.07.2012. 2. NOBODY WAS PRESENT ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE, TH EREFORE, THE CASE WAS PASSED OVER. IN THE SECOND ROUND ALSO, NOBODY WAS PRESENT NOR ANY APPLICATION FOR ADJOURNMENT WAS FILED BY THE ASSESS EE. IT IS SEEN FROM THE RECORDS THAT THIS CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS FIRST FI XED ON 10.01.2013 ON WHICH DATE BENCH DID NOT FUNCTION AND THE CASE WAS ADJOURNED TO 21.05.2013 AND THEN TO 24.09.2013 & THEN TO 26.06.2 014. ON ALL THREE OCCASIONS, THE ADJOURNMENT WAS OBTAINED BY THE COUN SEL OF ASSESSEE. IT IS SEEN FROM THE CONDUCT OF THE ASSESSEE THAT IT IS NO T INTERESTED IN PROSECUTING ITS APPEAL; HENCE, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS LIABLE TO BE DISMISSED FOR NON-PROSECUTION. IN OUR ABOVE VIE W, WE FIND SUPPORT FROM THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS:- ITA NO.5748/DEL/2012 2 1. IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. B.N. BHATTACHARGEE AND ANOTH ER, 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 VS. 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 REFERENCE IS M ADE, 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. 3. IN THE CASE OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX VS. MULTI PLAN INDIA (P.) LTD.; 38 ITD 320 (DEL.), THE APPEAL FILED BY T HE REVENUE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL, WHICH WAS FIXED FOR HEARING. BUT ON THE DATE OF HEARING NOBODY REPRESENTED THE REVENUE/APPE LLANT NOR ANY COMMUNICATION FOR ADJOURNMENT WAS RECEIVED. TH ERE WAS NO COMMUNICATION OR INFORMATION AS TO WHY THE REVEN UE CHOSE TO REMAIN ABSENT ON THAT DATE. THE TRIBUNAL ON THE BASIS OF INHERENT POWERS, TREATED THE APPEAL FILED BY THE RE VENUE AS UNADMITTED IN VIEW OF THE PROVISION OF RULE 19 OF T HE APPELLATE RULES, 1963. 3. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASS ESSEE, IS DISMISSED FOR NON- PROSECUTION. 4. THIS DECISION WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT O N 09 TH OCT. 2014. SD./- SD./- (R. P. YADAV ) (T.S. KAPOOR ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATE: 09 TH OCT., 2014 SP ITA NO.5748/DEL/2012 3 COPY FORWARDED TO:- 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT 4. THE CIT (A)-, NEW DELHI. 5. THE DR, ITAT, LOKNAYAK BHAWAN, KHAN MARKET, NEW DEL HI. TRUE COPY. BY ORDER (ITAT, NEW DELHI). S.NO. DETAILS DATE INITIALS DESIGNATION 1 DRAFT DICT ATED ON SR. PS/PS 2 DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR SR. PS/PS 3 DRAFT PROPOSED & PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER JM/AM 4 DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED BY SECOND MEMBER AM/AM 5 APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR. PS/PS SR. PS/PS 6 KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT SR. PS/PS 7 FILE SENT TO BENCH CLERK SR. PS/PS 8 DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO HEAD CLERK 9 DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO A.R. 10 DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER