M/s. Electronics Components, V. ACIT, New Delhi

ITSSA 28/DEL/2009

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 122 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3722 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 9 year(s) 2 month(s) 6 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-04-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 28-06-2017
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 18-02-2009
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Block assessment

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES : B : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R.S. SYAL, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI K. NARASIMHA CHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER IT(SS)A NO.28/DEL/2009 BLOCK ASSESSMENT PERIOD : 01.04.1985 TO 02.08.1995 M/S ELECTRONICS COMPONENTS, D-110, SECTOR-41, NOIDA. PAN: AAACE2391K VS. ACIT, CIRCLE-30(1), NEW DELHI. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : NONE DEPARTMENT BY : MS RACHNA SINGH, CIT, DR DATE OF HEARING : 24.04.2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 25.04.2018 ORDER PER R.S. SYAL, VP: THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE RELATE TO THE BL OCK ASSESSMENT PERIOD 01.04.1985 TO 02.08.1995. 2. WHEN THE MATTER WAS CALLED UP FOR HEARING TOD AY, NO ONE HAS APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FIL ED ANY ADJOURNMENT IT(SS)A NO.28/DEL/2009 2 APPLICATION ALSO. THE NOTICE OF HEARING SENT TO THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN RETURNED UNSERVED WITH THE REMARKS: BUILDING NO.D-110 IS NOT THERE IN SECTOR 14. INCOMPLETE ADDRESS, HENCE, RETURNED. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, IT APPEARS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED IN PROS ECUTING ITS APPEAL. THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS, THEREFORE, LIABLE TO BE DISMISSED, FOR NON- PROSECUTION. OUR ABOVE VIEW FINDS SUPPORT FROM THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS:- 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 FOLLO WING OBSERVATION:- 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 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 O F HEARING NOBODY REPRESENTED THE REVENUE/APPELLANT NOR ANY COMMUNICA TION FOR ADJOURNMENT WAS RECEIVED. THERE WAS NO COMMUNICATI ON OR IT(SS)A NO.28/DEL/2009 3 INFORMATION AS TO WHY THE REVENUE CHOSE TO REMAIN A BSENT ON THAT DATE. THE TRIBUNAL ON THE BASIS OF INHERENT POWERS , TREATED THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE AS UNADMITTED IN VIEW O F THE PROVISION OF RULE 19 OF THE INCOME-TAX (APPELLATE TRIBUNAL) R ULES, 1963. 3. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASS ESSEE IS DISMISSED FOR NON- PROSECUTION. THE ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 25.04.2 018. SD/- SD/- [K. NARASIMHA CHARY] [R.S. SYAL] JUDICIAL MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT DATED, 25 TH APRIL, 2018. DK COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT AR, ITAT, NEW DELHI.