Jai Narayan Bajrang, New Delhi v. ITO (E), New Delhi

ITA 2040/DEL/2013 | 2009-2010
Pronouncement Date: 09-10-2013 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 204020114 RSA 2013
Assessee PAN AAATJ7620F
Bench Delhi
Appeal Number ITA 2040/DEL/2013
Duration Of Justice 6 month(s)
Appellant Jai Narayan Bajrang, New Delhi
Respondent ITO (E), New Delhi
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 09-10-2013
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted D
Tribunal Order Date 09-10-2013
Date Of Final Hearing 03-05-2017
Next Hearing Date 03-05-2017
Assessment Year 2009-2010
Appeal Filed On 08-04-2013
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH D NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI U. B. S. BEDI JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B. C. MEENA ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 2040 / DEL/ 2013 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10) JAI NARAYAN BAJRANG VS. ITO (E) LAL TODI TRUSTS TRUST WARD IV D-116 PHASE 1 NEW DELHI OKHLA INDUSTRIAL AREA NEW DELHI PAN : AAATJ7620F (APPELLANTS) (RESPONDENTS) ASSESSEE BY : NONE DEPARTMENT BY: SHRI VIVEK KUMAR DR ORDER PER U B S BEDI JUDICIAL MEMBER: THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE EMANATES FROM THE ORDE R PASSED BY LD. CIT(A) XXI NEW DELHI DATED 05.02.2013 RELEVANT TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009- 10. 2. DESPITE SENDING NOTICE OF HEARING SUFFICIENTLY I N ADVANCE THE ASSESSEE DID NOT ATTEND ON THE APPOINTED DATE OF HEARING NOR ANY REQUEST FOR ADJOURNMENT HAS BEEN RECEIVED. IT IS INFERRED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED IN PROSECUTING HIS APPEAL; HENCE THE AP PEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS LIABLE TO BE DISMISSED FOR NON-PROSECUTION. IN OU R ABOVE VIEW WE FIND SUPPORT FROM THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS:- I) IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. B.N. BHATTACHARGEE AND ANOTH ER REPORTED IN 118 ITR 461 [RELEVANT PAGES 477 & 478] WHEREIN THEIR LORDSHIPS HAVE HELD THAT:- THE APPEAL DOES NOT MEAN MERELY FILING OF THE APPE AL BUT EFFECTIVELY PURSUING IT. I.T.A. NOS. 2040 /DEL/2013 2 II) IN THE CASE OF ESTATE OF LATE TUKOJIRAO HOLKAR VS. CWT; 223 ITR 480 (M.P.) WHILE DISMISSING THE REFERE NCE MADE AT THE INSTANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IN DEFAULT MADE FOL LOWING OBSERVATION IN THEIR ORDER:- 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. III) IN THE CASE OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX VS. MULTI PLAN INDIA (P.) LTD.; 38 ITD 320 (DEL.) THE APPEAL FILED BY T HE REVENUE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL WHICH WAS FIXED FOR HEARING. BUT ON THE DATE OF HEARING NOBODY REPRESENTED THE REVENUE/APPE LLANT NOR ANY COMMUNICATION FOR ADJOURNMENT WAS RECEIVED. TH ERE WAS NO COMMUNICATION OR INFORMATION AS TO WHY THE REVEN UE CHOSE TO REMAIN ABSENT ON THAT DATE. THE TRIBUNAL ON THE BA SIS OF INHERENT POWERS TREATED THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE AS UNADMITTED IN VIEW OF THE PROVISION OF RULE 19 OF THE APPELLATE R ULES 1963. 3. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASS ESSEE IS DISMISSED FOR NON- PROSECUTION. 4. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN ON THE DATE OF HEAR ING ITSELF I.E. 09 TH OCTOBER 2013. SD./- SD./- (B. C. MEENA) (U.B.S.BEDI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER SP. COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A)-XXV NEW DELHI AR ITAT 5. CIT(ITAT) NEW DELHI NEW DELHI