M/s. Shri Rathi Steel Ltd., New Delhi V. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 668/DEL/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 61601 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-04-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Next Hearing Date: 06-04-2017
• Assessment Year: 2002-2003
• Appeal Filed On: 08-02-2012
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S MOHANTY

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH `G NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI CHANDRA MOHAN GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A.NO.668/DEL/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2002-03 M/S SHRI RATHI STEEL LIMITED, VS ASSTT. COMM ISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, F-55D, GTB ENCLAVE, CIRCLE 8(1), NEW DELHI. NEW DELHI-110093 (PAN AAACS4554L) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: NONE RESPONDENT BY : SHRI S. MOHANTY, DR O R D E R PER CHANDRA MOHAN GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER THIS APPEAL HAS BEEN PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE AGA INST THE ORDER OF CIT(A)-XI, NEW DELHI DATED 21.11.2011 BY WHICH HE D ISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF AO DATED 29.12 .2009 PASSED U/S 147/143(3) OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961 CONFIRMING THE ADD ITION OF RS.9,50,000/- MADE TO THE RETURNED INCOME. 2. THE APPEAL FOR ASSTT. YEAR 2002-03 WAS INITIALLY FIXED FOR HEARING ON 11.4.2012 I.E. TODAY. ON 11.4.2012 WHEN THE CASE W AS CALLED FOR HEARING, NOBODY APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE AT THE TI ME OF HEARING NOR WAS ITA NO.668/DEL/2012 2 ANY APPLICATION FOR ADJOURNMENT WAS RECEIVED. IT A PPEARS THAT THE ASSESSEE/APPLICANT IS NOT INTERESTED IN GETTING THE APPEAL PROSECUTED. 3. HONBLE MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF TUKOJIRAO HOLKAR VS CWT 223 ITR 480 (MP), WHILE DISMISSING THE REFER ENCE MADE AT THE INSTANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IN DEFAULT, MADE THE FOLLO WING 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 MULTI PLAN 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 APPEAL 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 TH E REASONS MIGHT ALSO BE A DESIRE OR ABSENCE OF NEED TO PROSECUTE THE APPEAL O R LIABILITY TO ASSIST THE TRIBUNAL IN A PROPER MANNER OR TO TAKE BENEFIT OF V AGARIES OF LAW. 5. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE PRECEDENTS, THE APPEA LS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE TREATED AS UN-ADMITTED AND DISMISSED I N LIMINE. WE MAY LIKE TO CLARIFY THAT SUBSEQUENTLY, IF THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINS THE REASONS FOR NON- APPEARANCE AND IF THE BENCH IS SO SATISFIED, THE MA TTER MAY BE RECALLED FOR THE PURPOSE OF ADJUDICATION OF THE APPEALS. ITA NO.668/DEL/2012 3 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED FOR NON- PROSECUTION. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 12.4.2012. SD/- SD/- (SHAMIM YAHYA) (CHANDRA MOHAN GARG) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DT. 12TH APRIL, 2012 GS COPY FORWARDED TO:- 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT(A) 4. CIT 5. DR BY ORDER ASSTT. REGISTRAR