Umesh Chand Jain, Haridwar v. DCIT, Haridwar

ITA 3513/DEL/2016 | 2008-2009
Pronouncement Date: 17-10-2016 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 351320114 RSA 2016
Assessee PAN ABOPT7203R
Bench Delhi
Appeal Number ITA 3513/DEL/2016
Duration Of Justice 4 month(s) 2 day(s)
Appellant Umesh Chand Jain, Haridwar
Respondent DCIT, Haridwar
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 17-10-2016
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted SMC 1
Tribunal Order Date 17-10-2016
Date Of Final Hearing 17-10-2016
Next Hearing Date 17-10-2016
Assessment Year 2008-2009
Appeal Filed On 14-06-2016
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH : SMC-1 : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R.S. SYAL ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.3513/DEL/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008-09 UMESH CHAND JAIN RANIPUR MORE HARIDWAR. PAN : ABOPT7203R VS. DCIT CIRCLE HARIDWAR HARIDWAR. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY: SHRI N.K. BANSAL SR.DR DATE OF HEARING : 17.10.2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 17.10.2016 ORDER THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT(A) ON 22.03.2016 IN RELATION TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09. 2. WHEN THE MATTER WAS CALLED UP FOR HEARING TOD AY NO ONE HAS APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FIL ED ANY ADJOURNMENT APPLICATION ALSO. THE NOTICE OF HEARING SENT TO THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN ITA NO.3513/DEL/2016 2 RETURNED UNSERVED. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES IT APPEA RS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED IN PROSECUTING HIS APPEAL. THE APPEAL FI LED BY THE ASSESSEE IS THEREFORE LIABLE TO BE DISMISSED FOR NON-PROSECUT ION. OUR ABOVE VIEW FINDS SUPPORT FROM THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS:- 1. CIT VS. B.N. BHATTACHARGEE & ANR. 118 ITR 461 WHE REIN THEIR LORDSHIPS HAVE HELD: THE APPEAL DOES NOT MEAN MERELY FILING OF THE APPE AL BUT EFFECTIVELY PURSUING IT. 2. ESTATE OF LATE TUKOJIRAO HOLKAR VS. CWT 223 ITR 4 80 (M.P.) WHEREIN WHILE DISMISSING THE REFERENCE MADE AT THE INSTANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IN DEFAULT THEIR LORDSHIPS MADE THE FOLLO WING OBSERVATION:- 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. 3. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX VS. MULTIPLAN INDIA (P. ) LTD 38 ITD 320 (DEL.) WHEREIN THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL WAS FIXED FOR HEARING. BUT ON THE DATE O F HEARING NOBODY REPRESENTED THE REVENUE/APPELLANT NOR ANY COMMUNICA TION FOR ADJOURNMENT WAS RECEIVED. THERE WAS NO COMMUNICATI ON 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 UNADMITTED IN VIEW O F THE PROVISION OF RULE 19 OF THE INCOME-TAX (APPELLATE TRIBUNAL) R ULES 1963. ITA NO.3513/DEL/2016 3 3. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASS ESSEE IS DISMISSED FOR NON- PROSECUTION. THE DECISION WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 1 7 TH OCTOBER 2016. SD/- (R.S. SYAL) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 17 TH OCTOBER 2016. DK COPY FORWARDED TO 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR DY. REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI