Proteam Computers Industries Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi V. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 726/DEL/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 128 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3198 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 16 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-05-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 24-05-2017
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 08-02-2017
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL

Judgement Text

PAGE 1 OF 3 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH - SMC NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 726/DEL/201 7 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2012-13 PROTEAM COMPUTERS INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD., 11, OSIAN BUILDING, 12, NEHRU PLACE NEW DELHI 110 019 PAN AADCP8032B VS. ITO WARD-20(2) NEW DELHI (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PER BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ORDER THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN DIRECTED AGAIN ST THE ORDER OF LD.CIT(A) 12, NEW DELHI DT. 7 TH DECEMBER, 2016 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13. 2. NO AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE APP EARED AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF THE APPEAL DESPITE NOTIFYING THE DATE OF HEARING THROUGH REGISTERED POST. IT THEREFORE APPEARS ASSES SEE IS NO MORE INTERESTED IN PROSECUTING THE APPEAL. 3. HENCE, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS LIABL E TO BE DISMISSED FOR NON-PROSECUTION, FINDING SUPPORT FROM THE FOLLO WING DECISIONS : ASSESSEE BY : NONE DEPARTMENT BY: MS. BADOBANI, SR. DR DATE OF HEARING 24/05/2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 24/05/2017 ITA NO. 726/DEL/2017 PROTEAM COMPUTERS INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD. VS. ITO PAGE 2 OF 3 1. IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. B.N. BHATTACHARGEE AND ANOT HER, REPORTED IN 118 ITR 461 [RELEVANT PAGES 477 & 478] WHEREIN THEIR LORDSHIPS HAVE HELD THAT : THE APPEAL DOES NOT MEAN MERELY FILING OF THE APPEAL BUT EFFECTIVELY PURSUING IT. 2. IN THE CASE OF ESTATE OF LATE TUKOJIRAO HOLKAR VS. CWT; 223 ITR 480(M.P.) WHILE DISMISSING THE REFERENCE MADE A T THE INSTANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IN DEFAULT MADE FOLLOWING OBSERVATION IN THEIR ORDER : IF THE PARTY, AT WHOSE INSTANCE THE REFERENCE IS M ADE, FAILS TO APPEAR AT THE HEARING, OR FAILS IN TAKING STEPS FOR PREPARATION OF THE PAPER BOOKS SO AS TO ENABLE HEAR ING OF THE REFERENCE, THE COURT IS NOT BOUND TO ANSWER THE REFERENCE. 3. IN THE CASE OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX VS. MULTI PLAN INDIA (P) LTD.; 38 ITD 320 (DEL), THE REFERENCE FIL ED BY THE REVENUE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL, WHICH WAS FIXED FOR HE ARING. BUT ON THE DATE OF HEARING NOBODY REPRESENTED THE REVENUE/APPELLANT NOR ANY COMMUNICATION FOR ADJOURN MENT WAS RECEIVED. THERE WAS NO COMMUNICATION OR INFORMA TION AS TO WHY THE REVENUE CHOSE TO REMAIN ABSENT ON THA T DATE. THE TRIBUNAL ON THE BASIS OF INHERENT POWERS, TREATED THE REFERENCE FILED BY THE REVENUE AS UN-ADMITTED I N VIEW OF THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 19 OF THE APPELLATE TRIBU NAL RULES, 1963. ITA NO. 726/DEL/2017 PROTEAM COMPUTERS INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD. VS. ITO PAGE 3 OF 3 5. IN THE RESULT, WE TREAT THIS APPEAL AS UNADMI TTED AND DISMISS THE SAME IN LIMINE. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT. SD/- ( BHAVNESH SAINI ) JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 24/05/2017 *VEENA* COPY FORWARDED TO: - 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. PRINCIPAL CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT TRUE COPY BY ORDER, ASSISTANT REGISTRAR