Mrs. Ramma Thakur, Delhi V. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 813/DEL/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7407 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 6 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-08-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Next Hearing Date: 18-08-2016
• Assessment Year: 2003-2004
• Appeal Filed On: 07-02-2013
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH : F NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. H.S. SIDHU , JUDICIAL M EMBER AND SH. O.P. KANT , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 813 /DEL/ 2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2003 - 04 MRS. RAMMA THAKUR, D - 761, SARASWATI VIHAR, DELHI VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 25(1), NEW DELHI PAN : ADMPT0093K (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY NONE RESPONDENT BY NONE ORDER PER O.P. KANT , A. M. : THIS APPEAL, BY THE ASSESSEE, IS DIRECTED AGAINST ORDER OF LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) - XXIV, NEW DELHI, DATED 29.11.2012 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003 - 04. 2. WHEN THE CASE CAME UP FOR HEARING ON 16.01.2014, ASSESSEE S COUNSEL REQUESTED TO ADJOURN THE CASE, WHICH WAS ADJOURNED TO 07.07.2014 . ON 07.0 7.2014 , WHEN THE CASE WAS CALLED OUT, NONE TURNED UP ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE CASE WAS ADJOURNED TO 23. 12.2014. AGAIN O N 23.12.2014, NO ONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE CASE WAS ADJOURNED TO 18.05.2014. THEREAFTER, THE CASE WAS LISTE D FOR SEVERAL TIMES BUT DUE TO NON - FUNCTIONING OF THE BENCH THE CASE DATE OF HEARING 18.08.2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 22.08.2016 2 ITA NO . 813/DEL/2013 . AY : 2003 - 04 WAS ADJOURNED. LASTLY ON 25.04.2016, THE CASE WAS ADJOURNED TO 18.08.2016 AND NOTICE WERE ALSO ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE THROUGH RPAD AT THE ADDRESS FURNISHED BY HER IN COLUMN 10 OF THE MEMO OF APPEAL IN FORM NO. 36 , HOWEVER, NONE RESPONDED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE, NOR HAS ANY APPLICATION FOR ADJOURNMENT BEEN RECEIVED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. IT GIVES AN IMPRESSION THAT ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED IN PURSUING THE A PPEAL. 3. CONSIDERING THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND KEEPING IN VIEW THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 19(2) OF THE INCOME - TAX (APPELLATE TRIBUNAL) RULES, 1963 AS WERE CONSIDERED IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. MULTIPLAN INDIA LTD., (38 ITD 320)(DEL), THE ASSESSEE S APPEAL IS L IABLE TO BE DISMISSED FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION. 3. THE HON'BLE MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF ESTATE OF LATE TUKOJIRAO HOLKAR 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 SUPR EME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. B. BHATTACHARGEE & ANOTHER (118 ITR 461 AT PAGE 477 - 478) 3 ITA NO . 813/DEL/2013 . AY : 2003 - 04 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 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 SHE WOULD BE AT LIBERTY TO PRAY FOR A RECALL OF THIS ORDER BY MOVING AN APPROPRIATE APPLICATION. 7. IN T HE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED FOR NON - PROSECUTION. THE DECISION IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 2 2 N D AUGUST , 2016 . S D / - S D / - ( H.S. SIDHU ) ( O.P. KANT ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 2 2 N D AUGUST , 2016 . LAPTOP / - COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR ASST. REGISTRAR, ITAT, NEW DELHI