M/s. Super Growth Constructions Pvt. Ltd, New Delhi v. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 3606/DEL/2009 | 2003-2004
Pronouncement Date: 21-04-2010 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 360620114 RSA 2009
Assessee PAN AABCS7168M
Bench Delhi
Appeal Number ITA 3606/DEL/2009
Duration Of Justice 8 month(s) 1 day(s)
Appellant M/s. Super Growth Constructions Pvt. Ltd, New Delhi
Respondent ITO, New Delhi
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 21-04-2010
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted G
Tribunal Order Date 21-04-2010
Date Of Final Hearing 06-10-2016
Next Hearing Date 06-10-2016
Assessment Year 2003-2004
Appeal Filed On 19-08-2009
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH `G : NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI K.D. RANJAN ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.3606/DEL./2009 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2003-04) M/S SUPER GROWTH CONSTRUCTIONS PVT. LTD. VS. ITO WARD 9(4) M-11 GOKUL NIWAS MIDDLE CIRCLE NEW DELHI. CONNUAGHT CIRCLE NEW DELHI-110 001. (PAN/GIR NO.AABCS7168M) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : NONE REVENUE BY : SHRI KISHORE B. SR.DR ORDER PER K.D. RANJAN: AM THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE FOR AY 2003-0 4 ARISES OUT OF THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A)- XII NEW DELHI IN WHICH VARIOUS GROUNDS HAVE BEEN RAISED. 2. AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF THE APPEAL NEITHER TH E ASSESSEE NOR ANY OF HIS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE WERE PRESENT. ALTHOUGH LAST NOTICE POSTING THE APPEAL FOR HEARING ON 21.4.2010 WAS SENT AT THE ADDRESS GIVEN BY THE AS SESSEE IN FORM NO.36. EARLIER ON 20.1.2010 HEARING WAS ADJOURNED AS NONE ATTENDED B Y OR ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. THE NOTICE ISSUED HAS NOT COME BACK UNSERVED AND HENCE THE SERVICE IS PRESUMED TO BE SERVED. IT IS INFERRED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT IN TERESTED IN PURSUING THE APPEAL. THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS THEREFORE DISMISSED AS UNADMIT TED FOLLOWING THE RATIO OF DECISIONS RENDERED IN THE FOLLOWING CASES: 1. IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. B.N. BHATTACHARGEE AND AN OTHER 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. 2. IN THE CASE OF ESTATE OF LATE TUKOJIRAO HOLKAR V S. CWT; 223 ITR 480 (M.P.) WHILE DISMISSING THE REFERENCE MADE AT THE INSTANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IN DEFAULT MADE FOLLOWING OBSERVATION IN THEIR ORDER:- IF THE PARTY AT WHOSE INSTANCE THE R EFERENCE IS MADE 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. SIMILAR VIEW HAS BEEN TAKEN BY ITAT DELHI BENCH IN THE CASE OF MULTIPLAN INDIA (P).) LTD. REPORTED IN 38 ITD 320 (DEL.). 3. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE PRECEDENT THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED IN LIMINE FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION. HOWEVER IT IS CLARIFIED THAT IF ASSESSEE LATER ON EXPLAINS THE REASONS FOR NON-APPEARANCE AND THE BEN CH IS SO SATISFIED THE ORDER PASSED EX-PARTE MAY BE RECALLED FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION OF THE APPEAL. 3. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION. 4. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON THE CONCLUSION OF THE HEARING ON 21.4.2010. SD/- SD/- (RAJPAL YADAV) (K.D. RANJAN) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED APRIL 21 2010. SKB COPY FORWARDED TO: 1.APPELLANT 2.RESPONDENT 3.CIT 4.CIT(A)-XII NEW DELHI 5.CIT(ITAT) NEW DELHI. AR/ITAT