Smt. Vibha Rani, Gurgaon V. ITO, Gurgaon

ITA 6110/DEL/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7783 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 6 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-05-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: H
• Next Hearing Date: 19-05-2016
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 12-11-2013
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH : D : NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. H.S. SIDHU , JUDICIAL M EMBER AND SH. O.P. KANT , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 6110 /DEL/ 201 3 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006 - 07 SMT. VIBHA RANI, 20, AAKASH GANGA APARTMENT, SUSHANT LOK , PHASE - II, SECTOR - 56, GURGAON VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - II(3), GURGAON GIR/PAN : (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY NONE RESPONDENT BY SH. AMIT JAIN, SR. DR DATE OF HEARING 19.05.2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 23.05.2016 ORDER PER O.P. KANT, A. M. : THIS APPEAL, BY THE ASSESSEE, IS DIRECTED AGAINST ORDER OF LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS) - PANCHKULA , DATED 07.09.2009 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006 - 07 . 2. WHEN THE APPEAL CAME UP FOR HEARING ON 23.11.2015 , THE CASE WAS ADJOURNED FOR 22.02.2016 ON THE REQUEST OF DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE WHICH WAS INFORMED TO BOTH THE PARTIES. ON 22.02.2016, WHEN THE CASE WAS CALLED UPON, NONE RESPONDED ON THE BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE CASE WAS ADJOURNED FOR 19.05.201 6. AGAIN ON 19.05.2016, WHEN THE CASE WAS CALLED UPON, NEITHER ANY ONE RESP ONDED, NOR ANY APPLICATION FOR ADJOURNMENT HAS BEEN RECEIVED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE DESPITE ISSUANCE OF NOTICE FOR HEARING THROUGH RPAD AT THE ADDRESS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE IN COLUMN 10 OF TH E MEMO OF APPEAL IN 2 ITA NO. 6110/DEL/2013 AY: 2006 - 07 FORM NO. 36. IT GIVES AN IMPRESSION THAT ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED IN PURSUING ITS APPEAL. 3. CONSIDERING THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND KEEPING IN VIEW THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 19(2) OF THE INCOME - TAX (APPELLATE TRIBUNAL) RULES, 1963 AS WERE CONSIDERED IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. MULTIPLAN INDIA LTD., (38 ITD 320)(DEL), THE ASSESSEE S APPEAL IS LIABLE TO BE DISMISSED FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION. 3. THE HON'BLE MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF ESTATE OF LATE TUKOJIRAO HOL KAR VS. CWT (223 ITR 480) HAS HELD AS UNDER: '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, THE COURT IS NOT B OUND TO ANSWER THE REFERENCE. ' 4. SIMILARLY, HON'BLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF NEW DIWAN OIL MILLS VS. CIT (2008) 296 ITR 495) RETURNED THE REFERENCE UNANSWERED SINCE THE ASSESSEE REMAINED ABSENT AND THERE WAS NOT ANY ASSISTANCE FROM T HE ASSESSEE. 5. THEIR LORDSHIPS OF HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. B. BHATTACHARGEE & ANOTHER (118 ITR 461 AT PAGE 477 - 478) HELD THAT THE APPEAL DOES NOT MEAN, MERE FILING OF THE MEMO OF APPEAL BUT EFFECTIVELY PURSUING THE SAME. 6. RESPECTF ULLY FOLLOWING THE VIEW TAKEN IN THE CASES CITED SUPRA, WE DISMISS THE ABOVE APPEAL FOR NON - PROSECUTION. BEFORE PARTING, WE ADD THAT IN CASE THE ASSESSEE IS SERIOUS IN PURSUING THE APPEAL FILED, THEN HE WOULD BE AT LIBERTY TO PRAY FOR A RECALL OF THIS ORDE R BY MOVING AN APPROPRIATE APPLICATION. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED FOR NON - PROSECUTION. THE DECISION IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 2 3 R D MAY , 2016 . S D / - S D / - ( H.S. SIDHU ) ( O.P. KANT ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 2 3 R D MAY , 2016 . RK/ - COPY FORWARDED TO: 3 ITA NO. 6110/DEL/2013 AY: 2006 - 07 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR ASST. REGISTRAR, ITAT, NEW DELHI