M/s Fine Organics, Rampur V. Addl. CIT, Moradabad

ITA 5938/DEL/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 53443 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 11 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-12-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 26-12-2011
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 27-12-2010
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Depreciation
• Section: 10B

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH `B : NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI U.B.S. BEDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.5938/DEL./2010 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006-07) M/S FINE ORGANICS, VS. ADD.CIT, RANGE 1, C-7-10, ROSHAN BAGH MORADABAD. RAMPUR, U.P. (PAN/GIR NO.AAAFF6140Q) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : NONE REVENUE BY : SHRI ROHIT GARG, SR.DR ORDER PER U.B.S. BEDI: JM THIS IS ASSESSEES APPEAL FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 CONTENDING THAT THE CIT(A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS .3,01,713 CLAIMED U/S 10B OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961, ADDITION OF RS.23,795/- ON ACCOUNT OF C LAIM OF TELEPHONE AND MOBILE EXPENSES, ADDITION OF RS.5,530/- ON ACCOUNT OF CLAI M OF FOREIGN TOUR EXPENSES AND ADDITION OF RS.17,310/- ON ACCOUNT OF CLAIM OF CAR MAINTENANCE AND DEPRECIATION 2. AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF THE APPEAL, NEITHER THE ASSESSEE NOR ANY OF HIS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE WERE PRESENT, ALTHOUGH, T HE LAST NOTICE FOR HEARING THE APPEAL ON 26.12.2011 WAS SENT AT THE ADDRESS GIVEN BY THE AS SESSEE IN FORM NO.36. ON EARLIER OCCASIONS ALSO ON 3.3.2011, 20.4.2011 AND 23.8.2011 , THE APPEAL WAS ADJOURNED AT THE REQUEST OF THE LD.. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE. IT IS THUS INFERRED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED IN PURSUING THE APPEAL. THE APPEAL OF T HE ASSESSEE IS, THEREFORE, DISMISSED AS UNADMITTED FOLLOWING THE RATIO OF DECISIONS RENDERE D IN THE FOLLOWING CASES: 1. IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. B.N. BHATTACHARGEE AND AN OTHER, 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 V S. 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 R EFERENCE IS MADE, 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. SIMILAR VIEW HAS BEEN TAKEN BY ITAT, DELHI BENCH IN THE CASE OF MULTIPLAN INDIA (P).) LTD. REPORTED IN 38 ITD 320 (DEL.). 3. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE ABOVE PRECEDENTS, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED IN LIMINE FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION. HOWEV ER, IT IS CLARIFIED THAT IF ASSESSEE LATER ON EXPLAINS THE REASONS FOR NON-APPEARANCE AND THE BENCH IS SO SATISFIED, THE ORDER PASSED EX-PARTE MAY BE RECALLED FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION OF THE APPEAL. 3. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON THE CONCLUSION O F THE HEARING ON 26.12.2011. SD/- SD/- (SHAMIM YAHYA) (U.B.S. BEDI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED, DEC. 26, 2011 SKB COPY FORWARDED TO: 1.APPELLANT 2.RESPONDENT 3.CIT 4.CIT(A), BAREILLY 5.CIT(ITAT), NEW DELHI. AR/ITAT