M/s. Gurdeep Singh, Rudrapur V. ITO, Rudrapur

ITA 6017/DEL/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1213 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 04-02-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 03-12-2012
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: C NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A .NO.-6017/DEL/2012 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08) GURDEEP SINGH, VS ITO, S/O-DEEDAR SINGH, MANDI PARISAR, VILL-PHULSUNGI, KICCHA ROAD, RUDRAPUR RUDRAPUR PAN-CJGPS4851Q (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: NONE RESPONDENT BY: SHRI. SATPAL SINGH, SR. DR APPEAL HEARD ON-04.02.2013 ORDER PRONOUNC ED ON-04.02.2013 ORDER PER SHAMIM YAHYA, AM THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY ASSESSEE AGAINST THE OR DER OF CIT(A)-II, DEHRADUN DATED 29.10.2012. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL TAKEN BY A SSESSEE ARE AS UNDER :- I. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.52,44,016.00. II. THE APPELLANT RESPECTFULLY, SUBMITS AS UNDER :- 1. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX APPEALS (CIT-A) HAS WITHOUT GOING INTO THE FACTS HAS SUSTAI NED ADDITION AGGREGATING TO RS.10,00,950.00. 2. THAT THE ORDER IS BAD IN LAW, NOT IN AGREEMENT WITH FACTS AND IS AGAINST THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUST ICE. III. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, ALTER, AMEN D, AND/OR TO MODIFY ANY GROUNDS OF APPEAL, IF NECESSARY. I.T.A .NO.-6017/DEL/2012 2 2. WE NOTE THAT WHEN THIS CASE WAS CALLED FOR HEARI NG, NOBODY WAS THERE TO ATTEND THE CASE. NOTICE OF HEARING WAS ALREADY SEN T TO THE ASSESSEE. HENCE, IN OUR OPINION, THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED IN PROSECUT ING THE APPEAL. HENCE, THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IS LIABLE TO BE DISMISSED FOR NON -PROSECUTION. IN THIS REGARD, WE FOLLOW THE FOLLOWING ORDERS:- 1. IN THE CASE OF CIT VS B.N.BHATTACHARGEE AND ANO THER, REPORTED IN 118 ITR 461 [RELEVANT PAGES 477 & 478] WHEREIN T HEIR LORDSHIPS HAVE HELD THAT : THE APPEAL DOES NOT MEAN MERELY FILING OF THE APP EAL 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 TH E INSTANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IN DEFAULT MADE FOLLOWING OBSERVATIONS 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 REFERENC E, THE COURT IS NOT BOUND TO ANSWER THE REFERENCE. 3. IN THE CASE OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX VS. MU LTI PLAN INDIA (P) 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/APPELLANT NOR ANY CO MMUNICATION FOR ADJOURNMENT WAS RECEIVED. THERE WAS NO COMMUNICATI ON OR INFORMATION AS TO WHY THE REVENUE CHOSE TO REMAIN A BSENT ON THAT DATE. THE TRIBUNAL ON THE BASIS OF INHERENT POWERS, TREAT ED THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE AS UN-ADMITTED IN VIEW OF THE PROVIS IONS OF RULE 19 OF THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RULES, 1963. 3. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE STANDS DISMISSED. THE ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 04.02. 2013. SD/- SD/- (RAJPAL YADAV) (SHAMIM YAHYA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED:04/02/2013 *AMIT KUMAR* I.T.A .NO.-6017/DEL/2012 3 COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REG ISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI