Rajiv Aggarwal, Noida V. ACIT, New Delhi

ITSSA 13/DEL/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8250 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 4 month(s) 18 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-07-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Next Hearing Date: 27-06-2016
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 24-02-2010
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PRATIMA KAUSHIK
• Assessee Lawyers: N O N E NOTICE RETURNED
• Keywords: Block assessment

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL [ DELHI BENCH F DELHI ] BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, JM AND SHRI K. D. RANJAN, AM I. T. [SS] APPEAL NO. 13 (DEL) OF 2010. BLOCK ASSESSMENT PERIOD : 1/04/1985 TO 20/03/1996. SHRI RAJIV AGGARWAL, ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME- TAX, D 60, GAUTAM BUDH NAGAR, VS. CIRCLE : 36 (1), N O I D A [U. P.] N E W D E L H I. PAN / GIR NO. ACZ PA 3771 D. ( APPELLANT ) ( RESPONDENT ) ASSESSEE BY : N O N E [ NOTICE RETURNED ] ; DEPARTMENT BY : MS. PRATIMA KAUSHIK, SR. D.R. ; O R D E R. PER K. D. RANJAN, AM : THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE PERTAINS TO BLOCK ASSESSMENT PERIOD 1/04/1985 TO 20/03/1996. 2. THIS APPEAL WAS FIRST FIXED FOR HEARING ON 27/04 /2010 AND THIS DATE WAS NOTED AT THE TIME OF FILING OF THE APPEAL ON 24 TH FEBRUARY, 2010. ON 27/04/2010, NOBODY APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE CASE WAS ADJOURNED AT THE R EQUEST OF THE LD. DR FOR 29 TH APRIL, 2010. ON 29/04/2010 ALSO THE CASE WAS HEARD EX-PARTE AS N OBODY APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. THE CASE WAS RELEASED AND FIXED FOR HEARING ON 21/0 6/2010, BUT WAS ADJOURNED TO 19/10/2010. ON 19/10/2010 THE CASE WAS ADJOURNED TO 4/04/2011 A T THE REQUEST OF THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE. ON 4/04/2011, THE BENCH DID NOT FUNCTION AND THE CASE WAS AGAIN ADJOURNED AND 2 I. T. [SS] APPEAL NO. 13 (DEL) OF 2010. FIXED FOR HEARING ON 13/07/2011. THE NOTICE ISSUED FOR HEARING HAS BEEN RECEIVED UN-SERVED. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT NOTIFIED CHANGE OF ADDRESS, IF ANY. IT APPEARS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED IN GETTING THE APPEAL PROSECUTED. HON'B LE MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF TUKOJIRAO HOLKAR VS. CWT 223 ITR 480 (MP) WHILE DIS MISSING THE REFERENCE MADE AT THE INSTANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IN DEFAULT MADE THE FOLLOW ING OBSERVATIONS: 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 BOOK S O AS TO ENABLE HEARING OF THE REFERENCE, THE COURT IS NOT BOUND TO ANSWER THE REFERENCE. 3. ITAT DELHI BENCH D IN THE CASE OF CIT V. MULTI PLAN INDIA (P) LTD. OBSERVED THAT THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 19 STATE THAT MERE ISSUE OF NOTI CE COULD NOT BY ITSELF MEAN THAT THE APPEAL HAD BEEN ADMITTED. THIS RULE ONLY CLARIFIES THE POSITIO N. THERE MIGHT BE VARIOUS REASONS WITH THE APPELLANT TO REMAIN ABSENT AT THE TIME OF HEARING. ONE OF THE REASONS MIGHT ALSO BE A DESIRE OR ABSENCE OF NEED TO PROSECUTE THE APPEAL OR LIABILIT Y TO ASSIST THE TRIBUNAL IN A PROPER MANNER OR TO TAKE BENEFIT OF VAGARIES OF LAW. 4. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE PRECEDENTS THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS TREATED AS UN-ADMITTED AND DISMISSED IN LIMINE. WE MAY LIKE T O CLARIFY THAT SUBSEQUENTLY IF THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINS THE REASONS FOR NON-APPEARANCE AND IF THE BENCH IS SO SATISFIED, THE MATTER MAY BE RECALLED FOR THE PURPOSE OF ADJUDICATION OF THE APP EAL. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED FOR NON-PROSECUTION. THE ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON : 13 TH JULY, 2011. SD/- SD/- [ RAJPAL YADAV ] [ K. D. RANJA N ] JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED : 13 TH JULY, 2011. *MEHTA * 3 I. T. [SS] APPEAL NO. 13 (DEL) OF 2010. COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : - 1. APPELLANT. 2. RESPONDENT. 3. CIT, 4. CIT (APPEALS), 5. DR, ITAT, NEW DELHI. TRUE COPY. BY ORDER. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT. 4 I. T. [SS] APPEAL NO. 13 (DEL) OF 2010. 5 I. T. [SS] APPEAL NO. 13 (DEL) OF 2010.