M/s. Kamdhenu Restaurant, New Delhi V. ACIT, New Delhi

ITSSA 31/DEL/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 122 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1887 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 5 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-05-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 17-05-2016
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 20-12-2013
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH : D : NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. H.S. SIDHU , JUDICIAL M EMBER AND SH. O.P. KANT , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER IT (SS) A NO. 31 /DEL/ 2013 BLOCK PERIOD : 01.04.1996 TO 31.01.2003 KAMDHENU R ESTAURANT, 1 501, NEAR BLOOM PUBLIC SCHOOL, OPP. QUTUB MINAR, MAIN ROAD, MEHRAULI, NEW DELHI VS. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 24(1), NEW DELHI GIR/PAN : AAFFK8161R (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY NONE RESPONDENT BY SH. AMIT JAIN, SR.DR DATE OF HEARING 17.05.2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 20.05.2016 ORDER PER O.P. KANT , A. M. : THIS APPEAL, BY THE ASSESSEE, IS DIRECTED AGAINST ORDER OF LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS) - XXV, NEW DELHI, DATED 26.09.2013 FOR THE BLOCK PERIOD 01.04.1996 TO 31.01.2003. 2. EARLIER 17.11.2015, WHEN THE CASE WAS CALLED UPON, NO ONE RESPONDED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. THEREAFTER, WHEN THE APPEAL CAME UP FOR HEARING ON 17.05.2016, AGAIN NEITHER ANY ONE RESPONDED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE DESPITE ISSUANCE OF NOTIC E FOR HEARING THROUGH RPAD AT THE ADDRESS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE IN COLUMN 10 OF THE MEMO OF APPEAL IN FORM NO. 36, NOR ANY APPLICATION FOR ADJOURNMENT HAS BEEN RECEIVED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. IT GIVES AN IMPRESSION THAT ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED I N PURSUING ITS APPEAL. 3. CONSIDERING THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND KEEPING IN VIEW THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 19(2) OF THE INCOME - TAX (APPELLATE TRIBUNAL) RULES, 1963 AS WERE 2 IT (SS) A NO. 31/DEL/2013 CONSIDERED IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. MULTIPLAN INDIA LTD., (38 ITD 320)(DEL), THE ASSESS EE S APPEAL IS LIABLE TO BE DISMISSED FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION. 3. THE HON'BLE MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF ESTATE OF LATE TUKOJIRAO HOLKAR VS. CWT (223 ITR 480) HAS HELD AS UNDER: 'IF THE PARTY, AT WHOSE INSTANCE THE REFERENCE IS MADE, FAILS 'TO APPEAR AT THE HEARING, OR FAILS IN TAKING STEPS FOR PREPARATION OF THE PAPER BOOKS SO AS TO ENABLE HEARING OF THE REFERENCE, THE COURT IS NOT BOUND TO ANSWER THE REFERENCE. ' 4. SIMILARLY , HON'BLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF NEW DIWAN OIL MILLS VS. CIT (2008) 296 ITR 495) RETURNED THE REFERENCE UNANSWERED SINCE THE ASSESSEE REMAINED ABSENT AND THERE WAS NOT ANY ASSISTANCE FROM THE ASSESSEE. 5. THEIR LORDSHIPS OF HON'BLE SUP REME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. B. BHATTACHARGEE & ANOTHER (118 ITR 461 AT PAGE 477 - 478) HELD THAT THE APPEAL DOES NOT MEAN, MERE FILING OF THE MEMO OF APPEAL BUT EFFECTIVELY PURSUING THE SAME. 6. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE VIEW TAKEN IN THE CASES CITE D SUPRA, WE DISMISS THE ABOVE APPEAL FOR NON - PROSECUTION. BEFORE PARTING, WE ADD THAT IN CASE THE ASSESSEE IS SERIOUS IN PURSUING THE APPEAL FILED, THEN HE WOULD BE AT LIBERTY TO PRAY FOR A RECALL OF THIS ORDER BY MOVING AN APPROPRIATE APPLICATION. 7. IN T HE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED FOR NON - PROSECUTION. THE DECISION IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 2 0 T H MAY , 2016 . S D / - S D / - ( H.S. SIDHU ) ( O.P. KANT ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 2 0 T H MAY , 2016 . RK/ - COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR ASST. REGISTRAR, ITAT, NEW DELHI