M/s. Supreme Polypropelene Pvt. Ltd., Noida V. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 5917/DEL/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 97240 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 10 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 08-09-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC 1
• Next Hearing Date: 10-08-2015
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 03-11-2014
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: GARIMA JAIN
• Section: 2

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES : SMC NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI G.C. GUPTA, VICE PRESIDENT ITA NO: 5917/DEL/2014 ASSTT. YEAR 2005-06 SUPREME POLYPROPELENE PVT. LTD. VS. ITO C/O SH. RUPINDER KUMAR AGGARWAL, ADVOC ATE WARD-9(4) B-1A/22, SECTOR-51 NEW DELHI. NOIDA 201 301 (PAN AAACS4083Q) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY :MS. GARIMA JAIN, SR. DR DATE OF HEARING :10.8.2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEM ENT :8.9.2015 O R D E R PER G.C. GUPTA, VICE PRESIDENT THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE ASSE SSMENT YEAR 2005-06 IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). AT THE TIME OF H EARING NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE APPELLANT . THE NOTICE OF HEARING WAS SERVED ON THE ASSESEE BY SPEED POST. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PREFERRED EVEN AN APPL ICATION FOR ADJOURNMENT OF THE CASE. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES I AM OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED IN PURSUING ITS APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. HONBLE MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF TUKOJIRAO HOLKAR VS CWT 223 ITR 480 (MP) , WHILE DISMISSING THE REFERENCE MADE AT THE INSTANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IN DEFAULT, MA DE THE FOLLOWING OBSERVATIONS:- IF THE PARTY AT WHOSE INSTANCE, THE RE FERENCE IS MADE, FAILS TO APPEAR AT THE HEARING OR FAILS IN TAKING STEPS FOR PREPARATION OF THE ITA NO.5917/DEL/2014 SUPREME POLY PROPELENE PVT. LTD. VS. ITO 2 PAPER BOOKS SO AS TO ENABLE HEARING OF THE REFERENC E, THE COURT IS NOT BOUND TO ANSWER THE REFERENCE. 3. ITAT DELHI BENCH D IN THE CASE OF CIT VS MULTIPLAN INDIA (P) LTD. 38 ITD 320 OBSERVED THAT THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 19 STATE THAT MERE ISSUE OF NOTICE COULD NOT BY ITSELF MEAN THAT THE APPEAL HAD BEEN A DMITTED. THIS RULE ONLY CLARIFIES THE POSITION. THERE MIGHT BE VARIOUS REASONS WITH T HE APPELLANT TO REMAIN ABSENT AT THE TIME OF HEARING. ONE OF THE REASONS MIGHT ALSO BE A DESIRE OR ABSENCE OF NEED TO PROSECUTE THE APPEAL OR LIABILITY TO ASSIST THE TRIBUNAL IN A PROPER MANNER OR TO TAKE BENEFIT OF VAGARIES OF LAW. 3. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE PRECEDENTS, THE APPEA L FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS TREATED AS UN-ADMITTED AND DISMISSED IN LIMINE. I MAY LIKE TO CLARIFY THAT SUBSEQUENTLY, IF THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINS THE REASONS FOR NON-APPEARANCE AND IF THE BENCH IS SO SATISFIED, THE MATTER MAY BE RECALLED F OR THE PURPOSE OF ADJUDICATION OF THE APPEAL. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED FOR NON- PROSECUTION. SD/- (G.C. GUPTA) VICE PRESIDENT DATED: THE 8.9.2015 *VEENA COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT ITA NO.5917/DEL/2014 SUPREME POLY PROPELENE PVT. LTD. VS. ITO 3 4. CIT(A) 5. DR 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER DY. REGISTRAR SL. NO. DESCRIPTION DATE 1. DATE OF DICTATION BY THE AUTHOR 10.8.2015 2. DRAFT PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER 10.8.2015 3. DRAFT PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER 4. DRAFT APPROVED BY THE SECOND MEMBER 5. DATE OF APPROVED ORDER COMES TO THE SR. PS 6. DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER 7. DATE OF FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK 8. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK 9. DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER