Sh. Ram Pratap Yadav, New Delhi V. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 5884/DEL/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 87149 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 4 month(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-03-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Next Hearing Date: 08-06-2017
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 01-11-2013
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: VIKRAM SAHAY

Judgement Text

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH F : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R.S.SYAL , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI A. T. VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 5884 /DEL/ 2013 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2004 - 05 ) ITA NO. 5885 /DEL/ 2013 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2005 - 06 ) ITA NO. 5886 /DEL/ 2013 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006 - 07 ) ITA NO. 5887 /DEL/ 2013 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007 - 08 ) ITA NO. 5888 /DEL/ 2013 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008 - 09 ) ITA NO. 5889 /DEL/ 2013 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009 - 10 ) ITA NO. 5890 /DEL/ 2013 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010 - 11 ) RAM PRATAP YADAV, B - 3, 895 , WARD - 8, HILLTOP APARTMENT, MEHRAULI, NEW DELHI ABTPY7978B VS. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE - 22, NEW DELHI (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY : SH. VIKRAM SAHAY , SR. DR . DATE OF HEARING 27.03.2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 27 . 03 .2015 O R D E R PER BENCH THESE APPEALS PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD CIT(A) - II , NEW DELHI FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR S 2004 - 05 TO 2010 - 11 . 2. TODAY, I.E. ON 27 .03.2015 WHEN THE SE CASE S WERE CALLED ON BOARD, NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE NOR ANY REQUEST FOR ADJOURNMENT HAS BEEN FILED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. IT SEEMS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED IN PROSECUTING THE SE APPEAL S ; HENCE, THE APPEAL S FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS LIABLE TO BE UN - ADMITTED AND DISMISSED FOR NON - PROSECUTION. IN OUR ABOVE VIEW, WE FIND SUPPORT FROM THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS: - (I). IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. B.N. BHATTACHARGEE & ANOTHER 118 ITR 461 (RELEVANT PAGES 477 & 478) WHEREIN THEIR LORDSHIPS HAVE HELD THAT THE APPEAL DOES NOT MEAN MERELY FILING OF APPEAL BUT EFFECTIVELY PURSUING IT. PAGE 2 OF 2 (II). IN THE CASE OF ESTATE OF LATE TUKOJI RAO HOLKER VS. CWT 223 IR 480 (MP) WHILE DISMISSING THE REFERENCE MADE AT THE INSTANCE OF ASSESSEE IN DEFAULT MADE FOLLOWING OB SERVATIONS IN THEIR ORDER: 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, THIS COURT IS NOT BOUND TO ANSWER THE R EFERENCE. (III). IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. MULTIPLAN INDIA PVT. LTD. 38 ITD 320 (DEL). THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL WHICH WAS FIXED FOR HEARING BUT ON THE DATE OF HEARING NOBODY REPRESENTED THE REVENUE / APPLICANT, NOR ANY COMMUNICATIO N FOR ADJOURNMENT WAS RECEIVED. THERE WAS NO COMMUNICATION OR INFORMATION AS TO WHY REVENUE CHOOSE TO REMAIN ABSENT ON THAT DATE. THE TRIBUNAL ON THE BASIS OF INHERENT POWER TREATED THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE AS UN - ADMITTED IN VIEW OF RULE 19 OF THE A PPELLATE TRIBUNAL RULES, 1963. 3. THEREFORE, KEEPING IN VIEW THE ABOVE, THE SE APPEAL S FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED FOR NON - PROSECUTION. THE ASSESSEE, IF SO ADVISED, SHALL BE FREE TO MOVE THIS TRIBUNAL PRAYING FOR RECALLING OF THIS ORDER AND EXPLAIN ING THE REASONS FOR NON - COMPLIANCE ETC. AND IF THE BENCH IS SO SATISFIED ABOUT THE REASONS ETC, THEN THIS ORDER SHALL BE RECALLED. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE ASSESSEES APPEAL S ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 27 . 03 . 2015 . - S D / - - S D / - ( R.S.SYAL ) (A. T. VARKEY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED :27 / 03 / 2015 A K KEOT COPY FORWARDED TO 1. APPLICANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, NEW DELHI