Pal Buildwell Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi v. DCIT, New Delhi

ITA 2372/DEL/2014 | 2005-2006
Pronouncement Date: 06-10-2016 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 237220114 RSA 2014
Assessee PAN AADCP4108L
Bench Delhi
Appeal Number ITA 2372/DEL/2014
Duration Of Justice 2 year(s) 5 month(s) 19 day(s)
Appellant Pal Buildwell Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi
Respondent DCIT, New Delhi
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 06-10-2016
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted F
Tribunal Order Date 06-10-2016
Date Of Final Hearing 09-08-2016
Next Hearing Date 09-08-2016
Assessment Year 2005-2006
Appeal Filed On 17-04-2014
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH : F NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. H.S. SIDHU JUDICIAL M EMBER AND SH. O.P. KANT ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 2372 /DEL/ 2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2005 - 06 M/S. PAL BUILDWELL PVT. LTD. C/O - O.P. SAPRA & ASSOCIATES ADVOCATES C - 763 NEW FRIENDS COLONY NEW DELHI VS. DCIT CIRCLE - 14(1) NEW DELHI PAN : AADCP4108L (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY NONE RESPONDENT BY SH. F.R. MEENA SR.DR DATE OF HEARING 09.08.2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 06.10.2016 ORDER PER O.P. KANT A. M. : THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST ORDER OF LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) - XVII DELHI DATED 31.12.2013 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005 - 06. 2. IN THIS CASE THE NOTICE WAS SENT TO THE ASSESSEE FOR HEARING BY REGD. AD POST FOR 09.08.2016 AT THE ADDRESS MENTIONED IN FORM NO. 36 VIDE COLUMN NO. 10 BUT NEITHER THE ASSESSEE NOR HIS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE ATTENDED THE HEARING AND ALSO NOT FILED ANY APPLICATION FOR ADJOURNMENT. IT IS THUS INFERRED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED IN PROSECUTION OF HIS APPEAL THEREFORE IN MY CONSIDERED OPINION NO USEFUL PURPOSE WOULD BE SERVED TO SEND THE NOTICE AGAIN AND AGAIN ON THE SAME ADDRESS. 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 ITA NO. 2372/DEL/2014 AY: 2005 - 06 CONSIDERED IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. MULTIPLAN INDIA LTD. (38 ITD 320)(DEL) THE ASSESSEE 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 SUPR EME 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 CITED 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 IT 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 PRONOUN CED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 6 T H OCTOBER . 2016 . S D / - S D / - ( H.S. SIDHU ) ( O.P. KANT ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 6 T H OCTOBER 2016 . LAPTOP / - COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR ASST. REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI