M/s Gullu Exports (P) Ltd., New Delhi V. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 760/DEL/2009

• Counselvise Citation: [2009] 115 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1015 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 16-11-2009
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 16-11-2009
• Assessment Year: 2002-2003
• Appeal Filed On: 02-03-2009
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PRATIMA KAUSHIK

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH : C NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI C.L. SETHI, J UDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI K.D. RANJAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO.760/DEL./2009 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2002-03) GULLU EXPORTS (P) LTD., VS. ITO, WARD 12(3), 14A/33,IIIRD FLOOR, WEA, NEW DELHI. KAROL BAGH, NEW DELHI. (PAN/GIR NO.AAAXG4332J) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : NONE REVENUE BY : SMT. PRATIMA KAUSHIK, SR.DR ORDER PER K.D. RANJAN, AM THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 200 2-03 ARISES OUT OF ORDER OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)XVI, NEW D ELHI. 2. THIS APPEAL WAS FIRST FIXED FOR HEARING ON 6.5 .2009, BUT WAS ADJOURNED TO 07.07.2009. THE CASE WAS AGAIN FIXED FOR HEARING O N 21.9.2009. ON THE LAST OCCASION, THE CASE WAS FIXED FOR 16.11.2009 BY ISSUE OF NOTIC E DATED 9.10.2009. NONE ATTENDED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE NOR WAS ANY APPLICATION FOR ADJOURNMENT RECEIVED. IT APPEARS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED IN GETTING THE APPEA L PROSECUTED. HON'BLE MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF TUKOJIRAO HOLKAR VS. CWT 223 ITR 480 (MP) WHILE DISMISSING THE REFERENCE MADE AT THE INSTANCE OF TH E ASSESSEE IN DEFAULT MADE THE FOLLOWING OBSERVATIONS: 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 PAP ER BOOK SO AS TO ENABLE HEARING OF THE REFERENCE, THE COURT IS NOT BOUND TO ANSWER THE REFERENCE. 3. ITAT DELHI BENCH D IN THE CASE OF CIT V. MULTI PLAN INDIA (P) LTD. OBSERVED THAT THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 19 STATE THAT MERE ISSU E OF NOTICE COULD NOT BY ITSELF MEAN THAT THE APPEAL HAD BEEN ADMITTED. THIS RULE ONLY CLARIF IES THE POSITION. THERE MIGHT BE VARIOUS REASONS WITH THE APPELLANT TO REMAIN ABSENT AT THE TIME OF HEARING. ONE OF THE REASONS MIGHT ALSO BE A DESIRE OR ABSENCE OF NEED TO PROSEC UTE THE APPEAL OR LIABILITY TO ASSIST THE TRIBUNAL IN A PROPER MANNER OR TO TAKE BENEFIT OF V AGARIES OF LAW. 4. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE PRECEDENTS THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS TREATED AS UN-ADMITTED AND DISMISSED IN LIMINE. WE MAY LIKE T O CLARIFY THAT SUBSEQUENTLY IF THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINS THE REASONS FOR NON-APPEARANCE AN D IF THE BENCH IS SO SATISFIED, THE MATTER MAY BE RECALLED FOR THE PURPOSE OF ADJUDICAT ION OF THE APPEAL. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED FOR NON-P ROSECUTION. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 16 .11.2009. SD/- SD/- (C.L. SETHI) (K.D. RANJAN) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED, NOV. 16, 2009. SKB COPY FORWARDED TO: 1.APPELLANT 2.RESPONDENT 3.CIT 4.CIT(A)-XVI, NEW DELHI. 5.CIT(ITAT), NEW DELHI. AR/ITAT