Sany Heavy Industry India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi V. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 930/DEL/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 118 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9841 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 9 month(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 03-12-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: I
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 23-02-2016
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH : I-2 : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA A. PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.930/DEL/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011-12 SANY HEAVY INDUSTRY INDIA PVT. LTD., B-2/92, 9 TH FLOOR, HIMALAYA HOUSE, 23 KASTURBA GANDHI MARG, NEW DELHI. PAN : AAGCS7754L VS. ACIT, CIRCLE-22(1), CR BUILDING, NEW DELHI. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY: SHRI SARABJEET SINGH, SR.DR DATE OF HEARING : 03.12.2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 03.12.2018 ORDER PER R.K. PANDA, AM: THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 30 TH DECEMBER, 2015 PASSED BY THE A.O. U/S 144C READ WITH SECTION 143(3) OF THE IT ACT, RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12. 2. THIS APPEAL WAS FIXED FOR HEARING ON 15 TH OCTOBER, 2018 AND DUE TO NON- APPEARANCE ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE, THE CASE WAS ADJOURNED TO 3 RD DECEMBER, 2018 ITA NO.930/DEL/2016 2 BY ISSUE OF A REGISTERED NOTICE. HOWEVER, TODAY, W HEN THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE WAS CALLED, NOBODY APPEARED FROM THE SIDE OF THE ASSESS EE NOR ANY PETITION SEEKING ADJOURNMENT OF THE CASE WAS FILED. IT WAS FURTHER SEEN THAT THE REGISTERED LETTER ISSUED BY THE REGISTRY WAS RETURNED UNSERVED BY THE POSTAL AUTHORITIES AND THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT TAKEN ANY STEPS TO INTIMATE THE CORRECT ADDRESS , IF ANY. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, IT IS PRESUMED ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED IN PROSEC UTING THE APPEAL FILED BY IT. THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS, THEREFORE, LIABLE TO BE DISMISSED, FOR NON-PROSECUTION. OUR ABOVE VIEW FINDS SUPPORT FROM THE FOLLOWING DEC ISIONS:- 1. CIT VS. B.N. BHATTACHARGEE & ANR., 118 ITR 461, WHE REIN THEIR LORDSHIPS HAVE HELD: THE APPEAL DOES NOT MEAN MERELY FILING OF THE APPE AL BUT EFFECTIVELY PURSUING IT. 2. ESTATE OF LATE TUKOJIRAO HOLKAR VS. CWT, 223 ITR 4 80 (M.P.), WHEREIN, WHILE DISMISSING THE REFERENCE MADE AT THE INSTANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IN DEFAULT, THEIR LORDSHIPS MADE THE FOLLOWING OBSERVATION:- IF THE PARTY, AT WHOSE INSTANCE THE REFERENCE IS M ADE, FAILS TO APPEAR AT THE HEARING, OR FAILS IN TAKING STEPS FOR PREPARATI ON OF THE REFERENCE, THE COURT IS NOT BOUND TO ANSWER THE REFERENCE. 3. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX VS. MULTIPLAN INDIA (P. ) LTD, 38 ITD 320 (DEL.), WHEREIN THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL, WAS FIXED FOR HEARING. BUT ON THE DATE OF HEARING NOBODY REPRESE NTED THE REVENUE/APPELLANT NOR ANY COMMUNICATION FOR ADJOURNMENT WAS RECEIVED. THERE WAS NO COMMUNICATION OR INFORMATION AS TO WHY THE REVENUE CHOSE TO REMAIN ABSENT ON THAT DATE. THE TRIBUNAL ON THE BASIS OF INHEREN T POWERS, TREATED THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE AS UNADMITTED IN VIEW OF THE P ROVISION OF RULE 19 OF THE INCOME-TAX (APPELLATE TRIBUNAL) RULES, 1963. ITA NO.930/DEL/2016 3 3. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASS ESSEE IS DISMISSED FOR NON-PROSECUTION. THE DECISION WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 0 3.12.2018. SD/- SD/- (BEENA A. PILLAI) (R.K . PANDA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMFB ER DATED: 03 RD DECEMBER, 2018 DK COPY FORWARDED TO 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR ASSTT. REGISTRAR, ITAT, NEW DELHI