Vishal Iron Works Pvt. Ltd., Delhi v. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 3850/DEL/2010 | 2004-2005
Pronouncement Date: 08-09-2011 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 385020114 RSA 2010
Bench Delhi
Appeal Number ITA 3850/DEL/2010
Duration Of Justice 1 year(s) 27 day(s)
Appellant Vishal Iron Works Pvt. Ltd., Delhi
Respondent ACIT, New Delhi
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 08-09-2011
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted H
Tribunal Order Date 08-09-2011
Date Of Final Hearing 11-11-2013
Next Hearing Date 11-11-2013
Assessment Year 2004-2005
Appeal Filed On 12-08-2010
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES: H NEW DELHI BEFORE SMT. DIVA SINGH JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI K.D.RANJAN ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO: 3846/DEL/2010 A.Y. : 2000-2001 ITA NO: 3847/DEL/2010 A.Y. : 2001-2002 ITA NO: 3848/DEL/2010 A.Y. : 2001-2003 ITA NO: 3849/DEL/2010 A.Y. : 2003-2004 ITA NO: 3850/DEL/2010 A.Y. : 2004-2005 M/S VISHAL IRON WORKS P.LTD. VS. ACIT CIRCLE 17(1 ) C/O MATTA & ASSOCIATES C.R.BLDG. JD 21 C PITAMPURA NEW DELHI DELHI (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : NONE. RESPONDENT BY : SH. AK MONGA SR.D.R. O R D E R PER BENCH THESE ARE FIVE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE A GAINST THE CONSOLIDATED ORDER DATED 1.6.2010 OF CIT(A)-XIX NEW DELHI PERTAINING TO A.Y. 2000-01 TO 200405 WHEREIN THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE APPEAL IN EACH OF THESE YEARS AGAINST THE ACTION OF THE CIT(A ) IN UPHOLDING PENALTY IMPOSED BY THE A.O. U/S 271A. NONE WAS PRESENT ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE WHEN THE APPEAL WAS CALLED OUT. IT WAS PA SSED OVER IN THE FIRST 2 ROUND. AGAIN IN THE SECOND ROUND ALSO NO ONE PUT IN AN APPEARANCE ON BEHALF OF ASSESSEE NOR ANY REQUEST FOR ADJOURNMENT WAS RECEIVED. IT IS ALSO BORNE OUT FROM THE RECORD THAT NOTICE FOR THE DATE OF HEARING WAS ISSUED TO ASSESSEE ON 5 TH AUGUST 2011 AT THE ADDRESS GIVEN IN COL.NO.10 I.E. VISHAL IRON WORKS P.LTD. C/O MATTA & ASSOCIAT ES JD 21 C PITAMPURA DELHI 110 088. ACCORDINGLY IN THE PECUL IAR FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT T HE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED IN PROSECUTING THE APPEALS ANY FURTHER. WE THEREFORE HAVE NO OPTION BUT TO DISMISS THE APPEALS PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE PLACING RELIANCE ON THE RATIO OF DECISIONS 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 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 V S. 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. MULTIPLAN INDIA (P) LTD.; 38 ITD 320 (DEL) THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE 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 3 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 RULES 1963. 3. CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND KEEPING IN VIEW THE PR OVISIONS OF ORDER V RULE 19A OF THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RULES AS WERE CONSIDERED IN THE CASES OF CIT VS. MULTIPLAN (INDIA) P.LTD. 3 8 ITD 320 (DEL); LATE TUKOJI RAO HOLKAR 223 ITR 480 (MP) CIT VS B.N.BHA TTACHARGEE AND ANOTHER REPORTED IN 118 ITR 461 (RELEVANT PAGES 47 7 AND 478) LATE MRS. BANU E COWASJI VS CIT 276 ITR 594 (MP) WE DISMISS THESE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESEE FOR NON PROSECUTION. WE MAY LIKE TO CLARIFY THAT SUBSEQUENTLY IF THE ASSESSEE MOVES AN APPROPRIATE A PPLICATION FOR RECALL OF THE ORDER AND EXPLAIN THE REASONS FOR NON APPEAR ANCE AND IF THE BENCH IS SO SATISFIED THE ORDER MAY BE RECALLED FOR THE PURPOSE OF ADJUDICATION OF THE APPEAL. 4. IN THE RESULT THE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSE SSEE ARE DISMISSED IN LIMINI FOR NON PROSECUTION. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 8 TH SEPTEMBER 2011 IMMEDIATELY AFTER CONCLUSION OF THE HEARING. SD/- SD/- (K.D.RANJAN ) (DIVA SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 8 TH SEPTEMBER 2011 *MANGA COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT; 2.RESPONDENT; 3.CIT; 4.CI T(A); 5.DR; 6.GUARD FILE BY ORDER DY. REGISTRAR