M/s. Aashirwad Logistics, New Delhi V. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 922/DEL/2012

• Counselvise Citation: 92220114 RSA 2012
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-08-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 09-09-2014
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 24-02-2012
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: A NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI HARI OM MARATHA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A.N.PAHUJA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A .NO.-922/DEL/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR-2008-09 M/S AASHIRWAD LOGISTICS VS. ITO WZ-3A, IIND FLOOR, WARD-27(1) NARAINA RING ROAD, VIKAS BHAWAN, NEW DELHI-110028 NEW DELHI PAN-AAMFA1261B (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: NONE RESPONDENT BY: SHRI C.B.SINGH, SR. DR APPEAL HEARD ON-28.08.2012 ORDER PRONOUNCED ON-28.08.2012 ORDER PER HARI OM MARATHA, JM THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE FOR AY 2008-09 IS DIREC TED AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A), NEW DELHI DATED 22.12.2011. 2. THE APPEAL WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ON 22.03.20 12. IT WAS FIXED FOR HEARING ON 28.08.2012. HOWEVER, IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE OF HEARING DULY SERVED, NO ONE HAS COME PRESENT TO REPRESENT THE CA SE OF THE ASSESSEE NOR ANY APPLICATION FOR ADJOURNMENT HAS BEEN FILED. IT APPE ARS THAT THE APPELLANT IS NOT INTERESTED IN PROSECUTING THE APPEAL. HENCE, T HE APPEAL IS DISMISSED FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION IN VIEW OF THE FOLLOWING DECISI ONS:- I.T.A .NO.-922/DEL/2012 2 1. IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. B.N.BHATTACHARGEE AND ANOTH ER, REPORTED IN 118 ITR 461 [RELEVANT PAGES 477 & 478] WHEREIN THEIR LORDSHIPS HAVE HELD THAT : THE APPEAL DOES NOT MEAN MERELY FILING OF THE APP EAL BUT EFFECTIVELY PURSUING IT. 2. IN THE CASE OF ESTATE OF LATE TUKOJIRAO HOLKAR VS. CWT: 223 ITR 480 (M.P) WHILE DISMISSING THE REFERENCE MADE AT TH E INSTANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IN DEFAULT MADE FOLLOWING OBSERVATI ON IN THEIR ORDER: 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 PAPER BOOKS SO AS TO ENABLE HEAR ING OF THE REFERENCE, THE COURT IS NOT BOUND TO ANSWER THE REF ERENCE. 3. IN THE CASE OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX VS. MULTI PLAN INDIA (P) LTD.; 38 ITD 320 (DEL, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL, WHICH WAS FIXED FOR HEARING. BUT ON THE DATE OF HEARING NOBODY REPRESENTED THE REVENUE/APPE LLANT NOR ANY COMMUNICATION FOR ADJOURNMENT WAS RECEIVED. TH ERE WAS NO COMMUNICATION OF INFORMATION AS TO WHY THE REVEN UE CHOSE TO REMAIN ABSENT ON THAT DATE. THE TRIBUNAL ON THE BASIS OF INHERENT POWERS, TREATED THE APPEAL FILED BY THE RE VENUE AS UN- ADMITTED IN VIEW OF THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 19 OF TH E APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RULES, 1963. 3. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED, IN LIMINE, FOR NON PROSECUTION. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 28.08.2012. SD/- SD/- (A.N.PAHUJA) (HARI OM MARATHA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 28/08/2012 *AMIT KUMAR* COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, NEW DELHI I.T.A .NO.-922/DEL/2012 3