NAWLA ISPAT PVT. LTD., MEERUT V. ITO, WARD- 2(1), MEERUT

ITA 7375/DEL/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 125 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2773 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 12 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-08-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 08-12-2017
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH : E , NEW DELHI BEFORE SMT. DIVA SINGH , JUDICIAL M EMBER AND SHRI O.P. KANT , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO .7375 /DE L/ 2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2014 - 15 M/S. NAWLA ISPAT PVT. LTD., OPPOSITE POWER HOUSE, MEERUT ROAD, SARDHANA, MEERUT, UP VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2(1), MEERUT PAN : AACCN8595N (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ORDER PER O.P. KANT, AM: THIS APPEAL, BY THE ASSESSEE, IS DIRECTED AGAINST ORDER OF LEARNED PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MEERUT, DATED 03.10.2017 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014 - 15. 2. FOR THE FIRST TIME, THE APPEAL CAME UP FOR HEARING ON 16.05.2018, ON WHICH DATE, NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE CASE WAS ADJOURNED TO 23.07.2018 WITH THE DIRECTION TO ISSUE NOTICE. ON 23.07.2018, ON THE WRITTEN REQUEST OF CIT/DR, THE CASE WAS ADJ OURNED TO 20.08.2018 , WHICH WAS INFORMED TO BOTH THE PARTIES. DESPITE THIS, ON 20.08.2018, WHEN THE CASE WAS CALLED UPON, NONE TURNED UP ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE, N OR ANY APPLICATION FOR ADJOURNMENT HAS BEEN FILED. THE CASE WAS THEN PASSED OVER AND IN SEC OND ROUND OF CALL ALSO NONE ATTENDED. IT IS, THUS, INFERRED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED IN PROSECUTION OF 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) RULE S, 1963 AS WERE ASSESSEE BY NONE DEPARTMENT BY SH RI . S.R. SENAPTATI, SR.DR DATE OF HEARING 2 0.08.2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 20.08.2018 2 ITA NO.7375/DEL/2017 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. 4. THE HON'BLE MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF ESTATE OF LATE TUKOJIRAO HOLKAR V S. 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 T O 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 ASS ESSEE. 6. 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. 7. RESPECTFULLY 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 IT WOULD BE AT LIBERTY TO PRAY FOR A RECALL OF THIS ORDER BY MOVING AN APPROPRIATE APPLICATION. 8. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED FOR NON - PROSECUTION. THE DECISION IS PRONOUN CED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 20 TH AUGUST , 201 8 . SD/ - SD/ - ( DIVA SINGH) ( O.P. KANT ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 20 TH AUGUST , 201 8 . RK / - COPY FORWARDED TO: 1 . APPELLANT 2 . RESPONDENT 3 . CIT 4 . CIT(A) 5 . DR ASST. REGISTRAR, ITAT, NEW DELHI