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

ITA 920/DEL/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2010] 136 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3944 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 06-05-2010
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 05-03-2010
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: KISHORE B

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH `G : NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI A.D. JAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A.K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.919 & 920/DEL./2010 (ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2001-02 & 05-06) M/S SHEBAWHEELS (P) LTD., VS. ITO, WARD 8(2), 701, HEMKUNT CHAMBERS, NEW DELHI. NEHRU PLACE, NEW DELHI. (PAN/GIR NO.AABCS6007K) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : NONE REVENUE BY : SHRI KISHORE B., SR.DR ORDER PER A.D. JAIN: JM THESE APPEALS BY THE ASSESSEE FOR AYS 200 1-02 & 05-06 ARISE OUT OF THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A)-XI, NEW DELHI, IN WHICH THE FOLLOWING GR OUND HAS BEEN RAISED: THAT ON FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE AUTHORITIES BELOW ERRED IN HOLDING THE ASSESSEE GUILTY U/S 271( 1)(C) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 AND IN LEVYING PENALTY IN A SUM OF RS.3,59,905 /- FOR AY 2001-02 AND RS.4,63,420/- FOR THE AY 2005-06. THE ORDER BEING ARBITRARY, ERRONEOUS AND UNJUST MUST BE QUASHED. 2. AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF THE APPEAL, NEITHER TH E ASSESSEE NOR ANY OF HIS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE WERE PRESENT IN SPITE OF THE FACT TH AT THE DATE OF HEARING WAS NOTED BY THE ASSESSEE AT THE TIME OF FILING THE APPEAL ITSELF ON 5.3.2010 . IT IS, THEREFORE, INFERRED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED IN PURSUING THE APPE AL. THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE, THEREFORE, DISMISSED AS UNADMITTED FOLLOWING THE RA TIO OF DECISIONS RENDERED IN THE FOLLOWING CASES: 1. IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. B.N. BHATTACHARGEE AND AN OTHER, REPORTED IN 118 ITR 461 [RELEVANT PAGES 477 & 478], WHEREIN THEIR LORDSHIPS HAVE HELD THAT:- THE APPEAL DOES NOT MEAN MERELY FILING OF THE APPE AL BUT EFFECTIVELY PURSUING IT. 2. IN THE CASE OF ESTATE OF LATE TUKOJIRAO HOLKAR V S. CWT; 223 ITR 480 (M.P.) WHILE DISMISSING THE REFERENCE MADE AT THE INSTANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IN DEFAULT MADE FOLLOWING OBSERVATION IN THEIR ORDER:- IF THE PARTY, AT WHOSE INSTANCE THE R EFERENCE IS MADE, FAILS TO APPEAR AT THE HEARING, OR FAILS IN TAKING STEPS FOR PREPARATION OF THE REFERENCE, THE COURT IS NOT BOUND TO ANSWER THE REFERENCE. 3. SIMILAR VIEW HAS BEEN TAKEN BY ITAT, DELHI BENCH IN THE CASE OF MULTIPLAN INDIA (P).) LTD. REPORTED IN 38 ITD 320 (DEL.). 3. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE PRECEDENT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED IN LIMINE FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION. HOWEVER, IT IS CLARIFIED THAT IF ASSESSEE LATER ON EXPLAINS THE REASONS FOR NON-APPEARANCE AND THE BEN CH IS SO SATISFIED, THE ORDER PASSED EX-PARTE MAY BE RECALLED FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION OF THE APPEAL. 3. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION. 4. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON THE CONCLUSION OF THE HEARING ON 06.05.2010. SD/- SD/- (A.K. GARODIA) (A.D. JAIN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED, MAY 06, 2010. SKB COPY FORWARDED TO: 1.APPELLANT 2.RESPONDENT 3.CIT 4.CIT(A)-XI, NEW DELHI 5.CIT(ITAT), NEW DELHI. AR/ITAT