Ms. Harpreet Kaur, New Delhi V. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 840/DEL/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 121 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9718 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 7 month(s) 8 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-09-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: H
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 17-02-2016
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH : B , NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA , ACCOUNTANT M EMBER AND SHRI N.K. CH O UDHRY , JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO . 840 /DE L/ 2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009 - 10 MS. HARPREET KAUR, B - 21, SECOND FLOOR, KIRTI NAGAR, NEW DELHI VS. ACIT, CIRCLE - 27(1), NEW DELHI PAN : AAJPK4430F (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ORDER PER N.K. CHO UDHRY, J. M . : THE PRESENT APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A) - 17, NEW DELHI, DATED 28.10.2015, PERTAINING TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009 - 10. 2. NONE PUT APPEARANCE ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE AT THE TIME OF HEARING I.E. TODAY DESPITE ISSUE 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. THE ENVELOPE, CONTAINING THE NOTICE OF HEARING HA S RETURNED UNSERVED WITH THE REMARK LEFT . NO APPLICATION FOR ADJOURNMENT OF HEARING HAS BEEN RECEIVED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. IT GIVES AN IMPRESSION THAT ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED IN PURSUING HER APPEAL. 3. CONSIDERING THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND KEEP ING 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 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 VS. CWT (223 ITR 480) HAS HELD AS UNDER: APPELLANT BY NONE RESPONDENT BY MS. ASHIMA NEB, SR.DR DATE OF HEARING 26.09.2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 26.09.2018 2 ITA NO.840/DEL/2016 '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. ' 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 ASSESSEE. 6. THEIR LORDSHIPS OF HON'BLE SU PREME 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 CIT ED 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. 8. I N THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED FOR NON - PROSECUTION. ORDER IS PRONOUN CED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 2 6 T H SEPT. , 201 8 . S D / - S D / - N.K. BILLAIYA N.K. CHOUDHRY ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 2 6 T H SEPTEMBER , 201 8 . RK / - COPY FORWARDED TO: 1 . APPELLANT 2 . RESPONDENT 3 . CIT 4 . CIT(A) 5 . DR ASST. REGISTRAR, ITAT, NEW DELHI