Indian Current Publications, New Delhi v. DIT(E), Delhi

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES: C NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI D.R.SINGH JM AND SHRI R.C.SHARMA AM ITA NO. 3503/DEL/2008 A.Y. : .. INDIAN CURRENT PUBLICATIONS VS. DIT(EXEMPTIONS) 375 A MAYUR VIHAR PHASE I AYAKAR BHAVA N DELHI 110 091 DT. CENTRE LAXMI NAGAR DELHI 92 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY : MRS. MANISHA CHANDRA D.R. O R D E R PER D.R. SINGH JUDICIAL MEMBER THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THIS APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDE R PASSED BY THE DIT(EXEMPTIONS) DELHI DATED 27.10.2008. 2. THIS CASE WAS LISTED FOR HEARING BEFORE THE TRIB UNAL ON 04.01.2010. NOTICE OF HEARING WAS SENT TO THE ASSESEE FOR THIS DATE OF HEARING THROUGH REGD. POST A.D. ON 25.11.2009 BUT THE POSTAL AUTHOR ITIES HAVE NOT RETURNED THE NOTICE EITHER SERVED OR UNSERVED. SIN CE THE PERIOD OF MORE THAN 30 DAYS HAS ELAPSED FROM THE DATE OF ISSUE OF THE NOTICE TILL THE DATE OF HEARING I.E. 4.1.2010 HENCE THE NOTICE IS DEEME D TO HAVE BEEN SERVED 2 UPON THE ASSESEE AS PER PROVISIONS OF SUB RULE 5 TO RULE 9 OF ORDER 5 OF CPC. 3. ON 04.01.2010 I.E. THE DATE OF HEARING BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL WHEN THE CASE WAS CALLED ON BOARD NONE APPEARED ON BEHA LF OF THE ASSESSEE NOR ANY REQUEST FOR ADJOURNMENT HAS BEEN FILED BEFO RE THE TRIBUNAL. IT SEEMS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED IN PROSEC UTING ITS APPEAL HENCE THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS LIABLE T O BE UNADMITTED/DISMISSED FOR NON-PROSECUTION. IN OUR ABOVE VIEW WE FIND SUPPORT FROM THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS: 1. IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. B.N. BHATTACHARGEE AND ANOTH ER REPORTED IN 118 ITR 461 [RELEVANT PAGES 477 & 478] WHEREIN THEI R LORDSHIPS HAVE HELD THAT: THE APPEAL DOES NOT MEAN MERELY FILING OF THE APPE AL BUT EFFECTIVELY PURSUING IT. 2. IN THE CASE OF ESTATE OF LATE TUKOJIRAO HOLKAR VS. CWT; 223 ITR 480 (M.P.) WHILE DISMISSING THE REFERENCE MADE AT THE I NSTANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IN DEFAULT MADE FOLLOWING OBSERVATION IN T HEIR 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 PAPER BOOKS SO AS TO ENABLE HEAR ING OF THE REFERENCE THE COURT IS NOT BOUND TO ANSWER THE REFERENCE. 3. IN THE CASE OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX VS. MULTI PLAN INDIA (P) LTD.; 38 ITD 320 (DEL) THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REV ENUE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL WHICH WAS FIXED FOR HEARING. BUT ON THE DATE OF HEARING NOBODY REPRESENTED THE REVENUE/APPELLANT NOR ANY CO MMUNICATION FOR ADJOURNMENT WAS RECEIVED. THERE WAS NO COMMUNI CATION OR 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 UN-ADMITTED IN VIEW OF THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 19 OF THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RUL ES 1963. 3 4. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THESE DECISIONS (SUPRA) THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESEE IS TREATED AS UNADMITTED/DISMISSED FOR NON PROSECUTION. WE MAY LIKE TO CLARIFY THAT SUBSEQUENTLY IF THE ASSESS EE MOVES AN APPROPRIATE APPLICATION FOR RECALL OF THE ORDER AND EXPLAIN THE REASONS FOR NON APPEARANCE AND IF THE BENCH IS SO SATISFIED TH E ORDER MAY BE RECALLED FOR THE PURPOSE OF ADJUDICATION OF THE APP EAL. 5. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESE E IS TREATED AS UNADMITTED AND DISMISSED FOR NON PROSECUTION. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 04.01.2010 IMMEDI ATELY AFTER CONCLUSION OF THE HEARING. (R.C. SHARMA) (D.R.SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMB ER DATED: 4 TH JANUARY 2010 *MANGA COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT; 2.RESPONDENT; 3.CIT; 4.CIT (A); 5.DR 6.GUARD FILE BY ORDER DY. REGISTRAR 4 // TR UE COPY //