Sanjeev Sikka, New Delhi v. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 1/DEL/2010 | 2005-2006
Pronouncement Date: 03-03-2010 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 120114 RSA 2010
Bench Delhi
Appeal Number ITA 1/DEL/2010
Duration Of Justice 2 month(s) 1 day(s)
Appellant Sanjeev Sikka, New Delhi
Respondent ITO, New Delhi
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 03-03-2010
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted G
Tribunal Order Date 03-03-2010
Date Of Final Hearing 03-03-2010
Next Hearing Date 03-03-2010
Assessment Year 2005-2006
Appeal Filed On 01-01-2010
Judgment Text
I.T.A. NO.01 /DEL/10 1/2 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH G NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI A.K. GARODIA ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI GEORGE MATHAN JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. NO.01 /DEL/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2005-06 SHRI SANJEEV SIKKA ITO B-550 NEW FRIENDS COLONY WARD-41 (4) NEW DELHI. V. NEW DELHI. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN /GIR/NO.AAUPS-4344-P APPELLANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY : SURABHI AHULWALIA SR. DR. ORDER PER A.K. GARODIA AM: THIS APPEAL WAS FIXED FOR HEARING ON 3.3.2010 AND T HE DATE OF HEARING WAS INFORMED TO THE ASSESSEE IN ACKNOWLEDGEMENT-CUM-NOT ICE ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE ON 1.1.2010 WHEN THE APPEAL WAS FILED BY T HE ASSESSEE. IN SPITE OF THIS NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE AND T HERE IS NO REQUEST FOR ADJOURNMENT AND HENCE WE INFER THAT UNDER THESE FAC TS IT APPEARS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED IN GETTING THE APPEAL PR OSECUTED. HON'BLE MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF TUKOJIRAO HOLKAR V. CWT 223 ITR 480 (MP) WHILE DISMISSING THE REFERENCE MADE AT THE INSTANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IN DEFAULT MADE THE FOLLOWING 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 SO AS TO . I.T.A. NO01/DEL/10 2/2 ENABLE HEARING OF THE REFERENCE THE COURT IS NOT B OUND TO ANSWER THE REFERENCE. 2. 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 NOTICE COULD NOT BY ITSELF MEAN THAT THE APPEAL HAD BEEN ADMITTED. T HIS RULE ONLY CLARIFIES THE POSITION. THERE MIGHT BE VARIOUS REASONS WITH THE A PPELLANT 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 LIABILITY TO ASSIST THE TRIBUNAL IN A PROPER MANNER OR TO TAKE BENEFIT OF VAGARIES OF LAW. 3. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE PRECEDENTS THE APPEA L FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS TREATED AS UN-ADMITTED AND DISMISSED IN LIMINE. WE MAY LIKE TO CLARIFY THAT SUBSEQUENTLY IF THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINS THE REASONS F OR NON APPEARANCE AND IF THE BENCH IS SO SATISFIED THE MATTER MAY BE RECALLED F OR THE PURPOSE OF ADJUDICATION OF THE APPEAL. 4. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED FOR NON P ROSECUTION. 5. PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON THE DATE OF HEARING I.E. 3.3.2010. SD/- SD/- (GEORGE MATHAN) (A.K. GARODIA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DT. 03.3.2010. HMS COPY FORWARDED TO:- 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT 4. THE CIT (A)- NEW DELHI. 5. THE DR ITAT LOKNAYAK BHAWAN KHAN MARKET NEW DELHI. TRUE COPY. BY ORDER (ITAT NEW DELHI).