M/s. Rana Casting Ltd., Muzaffarnagar V. ACIT, Muzaffarnagar

ITA 6103/DEL/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 86750 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 2 month(s) 6 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-02-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Next Hearing Date: 10-02-2015
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 07-12-2012
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: VIKRAM SAHAY

Judgement Text

ITA NO. 6103/DEL/2012 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH `F NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R.S SYAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI CHANDRA MOHAN GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 6103/DEL/2012 ASSESSMENT PERIOD : 2009-10 RANA CASTING LTD, VS ACIT MEERUT ROAD, CIRCLE- 1 MUZAFFARNAGAR MUZAFFARNAGAR (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: NONE RESPONDENT BY : SH. VIKRAM SAHAY, SR. DR O R D E R PER CHANDRA MOHAN GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER THE ABOVE APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGA INST THE ORDER OF CIT(A)-MUZAFFARNAGAR, DATED 29/08/2012. 2. THIS APPEAL WAS INITIALLY FIXED FOR HEARING ON 0 7/02/2013 AND SINCE THEN MANY ADJOURNMENTS HAVE BEEN SOUGHT BY THE COUN SEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. THEREAFTER, THE APPEAL WAS FIXED FOR HEARING ON 10/ 02/2015 AND BOTH PARTIES WERE INFORMED. TODAY ON 10/02/2015, NO ONE WAS PRE SENT ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE NOR ANY REQUEST FOR ADJOURNMENT WAS PLACED BEFORE THE BENCH. SHRI ITA NO. 6103/DEL/2012 2 VIKRAM SAHAY, SR. DR APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE REVE NUE AT THE TIME OF HEARING. 3. IT APPEARS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED I N GETTING THE APPEAL PROSECUTED. 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 D EFAULT, MADE THE FOLLOWING OBSERVATIONS:- IF THE PARTY AT WHOSE INSTANCE, THE REFERENCE IS MADE, FAILS TO APPEAR AT THE HEARING OR FAILS IN TA KING STEPS FOR PREPARATION OF THE PAPER BOOKS SO AS TO E NABLE HEARING OF THE REFERENCE, THE COURT IS NOT BOUND TO ANSWER THE REFERENCE. 4. 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 A PPEAL HAD BEEN ADMITTED. THIS RULE ONLY CLARIFIES THE POSITION. THERE MIGHT BE VARIOUS REASONS WITH THE APPELLANT TO REMAIN ABSENT AT THE TIME OF HEARING. ONE OF THE REASONS MIGHT ALSO BE A DESIRE OR ABSENCE OF NEED TO PROSECUTE TH E APPEAL OR LIABILITY TO ASSIST THE TRIBUNAL IN A PROPER MANNER OR TO TAKE B ENEFIT OF VAGARIES OF LAW. 5. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE PRECEDENTS, THE APPEA L FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS TREATED AS UN-ADMITTED AND DISMISSED IN LIMINE. WE MAY LIKE TO CLARIFY ITA NO. 6103/DEL/2012 3 THAT SUBSEQUENTLY, IF THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINS THE REA SONS FOR NON-APPEARANCE AND IF THE BENCH IS SO SATISFIED, THE MATTER MAY BE RECALLED FOR THE PURPOSE OF ADJUDICATION OF THE APPEAL. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED FOR NON- PROSECUTION. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 13 /02/201 5. SD/- SD/- (R.S. SYAL) (CHANDRAMOHAN GARG) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DT. 13TH FEBRUARY 2015 GS COPY FORWARDED TO:- 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. C.I.T.(A) 4. C.I.T. 5. DR BY ORDER ASSTT.REGISTRAR