Premier Book Co., New Delhi V. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 6583/DEL/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 125 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7249 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 6 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 03-07-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 26-12-2016
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH : F , NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. BHAVNESH SAINI , JUDICIAL M EMBER AND SH. O.P. KANT , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO . 6583 /DE L/ 2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2013 - 14 PREMIER BOOK CO., 4792/23, DARYA GANJ, NEW DELHI VS. ACIT, CIRCLE - 52(1), NEW DELHI PAN : AAEFP8468R ( APPELLANT ) (RESPONDENT) ORDER PER O.P. KANT , A. M. : THE PRESENT APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A) - 18, NEW DELHI, DATED 13.10.2016, PERTAINING TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013 - 14. 2. T HE PRESENT APPEAL, FOR THE FIRST TIME, CAME UP FOR HEARING ON 04.01.2018, HOWEVER , ON THE WRITTEN REQUEST OF ASSESSEE S COUNSEL, THE CASE WAS ADJOURNED TO 26.03.2018. ON 26.03.2018, AGAIN THE CASE WAS ADJOURNED TO 03.07.2018 ON THE WRITTEN REQUEST OF THE ASSESSEE S COUNSEL AND BOTH THE PARTIES WERE INFORMED IN THE OPEN COURT . ON 03.07.2018, I.E., TODAY , WHEN THE CASE WAS CALLED UPON, NONE TURNED UP ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE AND EVEN NO APPLICATION FOR ADJOURNMENT OF HEARING HAS BEEN FILED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. IT GIVES AN IMPRESSION THAT A SSESSEE 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. APPELLANT BY NONE RESPONDENT BY SH. ATIQ AHMED, SR.DR DATE OF HEARING 03.07.2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 03.07.2018 2 ITA NO. 6583/DEL/2016 4. THE HON'BLE MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF ESTATE OF LATE TUKOJIRAO HOLKAR 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 BOUND TO ANSWER THE REFERENCE. ' 5. 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 THE ASSESSEE. 6. THEIR LORDSHIPS OF HON'BLE SUP REME 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. 7. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE VIEW TAKEN IN THE CASES CITE D SUPRA, WE DISMISS THE APPEAL FOR NON - PROSECUTION. BEFORE PARTING, WE ADD THAT IN CASE THE ASSESSEE IS SERIOUS IN PURSUING THE APPEAL FILED, THEN IT WOULD BE AT LIBERTY TO PRAY FOR A RECALL OF THIS ORDER BY MOVING AN APPROPRIATE PETITION AND ALSO BY TAKIN G APPROPRIATE ACTION TO CORRECT THE DEFECTS, IF ANY, POINTED OUT. THE CO - ORDINATE BENCH CONSIDERING THE PETITION, IF SO SATISFIED WITH THE EXPLANATION AND THE ACTIONS OF CURING THE DEFECTS, MAY RECALL THIS ORDER. 8. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSES SEE IS DISMISSED FOR NON - PROSECUTION. THE DECISION IS PRONOUN CED IN THE OPEN COURT . SD/ - SD/ - ( BHAVNESH SAINI ) ( O.P. KANT ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 3 RD JULY , 201 8 . RK / - (D.T.D . ) COPY FORWARDED TO: 1 . APPELLANT 2 . RESPONDENT 3 . CIT 4 . CIT(A) 5 . DR ASST. REGISTRAR, ITAT, NEW DELHI