M/s. Inderjeet Chawla & Sons (HUF), New Delhi V. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 6680/DEL/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7676 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 5 month(s) 8 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-05-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 25-05-2016
• Assessment Year: 2001-2002
• Appeal Filed On: 19-12-2013
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: T VASANTHAN

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 S. 6679 & 6680 /DEL/ 2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2001 - 02 INDERJEET CHAWLA & SONS (HUF), 21, WEST AVENUE ROAD, PUNJABI BAGH, NEW DELHI VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 25(3), NEW DELHI GIR/PAN : AAAHI4354M (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY NONE RESPONDENT BY SH. T. VASANTHAN, SR. DR DATE OF HEARING 25.05.2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 27.05.2016 ORDER PER O.P. KANT , A. M. : THESE APPEAL S , BY THE ASSESSEE, ARE DIRECTED AGAINST SEPARATE ORDER S OF LEARNED COMMI SSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS), DATED 01.10.2013 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001 - 02 . 2. EARLIER W HEN THE APPEAL S CAME UP FOR HEARING ON 11.09.2015 , THE CASE WAS ADJOURNED ON THE REQUEST OF ASSESSEE S COUNSEL . AGAIN ON 02.11.2015, ON THE REQUEST OF ASSESSEE S COUNSEL, THE CASE WAS ADJO URNED FOR 25.01.2016 , ON WH ICH DATE, DUE TO NON - FUNCTIONING OF BENCH, THE CASE WAS F IXED FOR 25.05.2016. ON 25.05.2016, WHEN THE CASE WAS CALLED UPON, NEITHER ANY ONE APPEARED, 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 THE MEMO OF APPEAL IN FORM NO. 36. IT GIVES AN IMPRESSION THAT ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED IN PURSUING ITS APPEAL S . 3. CONSIDERING THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND KEEPING IN VIEW THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 19(2) OF THE INCOME - TAX (APPELLAT E TRIBUNAL) RULES, 1963 AS WERE 2 ITA NO. 6679 & 6680/DEL/2013 CONSIDERED IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. MULTIPLAN INDIA LTD., (38 ITD 320)(DEL), THE ASSESSEE S APPEAL S ARE LIABLE TO BE DISMISSED FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION. 3. THE HON'BLE MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF ESTATE OF LATE TUKOJIRAO H OLKAR 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. ' 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 THE ASSESSEE. 5. 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. 6. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE VIEW TAKEN IN THE CASES CITE D SUPRA, WE DISMISS THE ABOVE APPEAL S FOR NON - PROSECUTION. BEFORE PARTING, WE ADD THAT IN CASE THE ASSESSEE IS SERIOUS IN PURSUING THE APPEAL S FILED, THEN HE WOULD BE AT LIBERTY TO PRAY FOR A RECALL OF THIS ORDER BY MOVING AN APPROPRIATE APPLICATION. 7. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEAL S OF THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED FOR NON - PROSECUTION. THE DECISION IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 2 7 T H MAY , 2016 . S D / - S D / - ( H.S. SIDHU ) ( O.P. KANT ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 2 7 T H MAY , 2016 . RK/ - COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR ASST. REGISTRAR, ITAT, NEW DELHI