Sukriti, New Delhi v. DIT(E), New Delhi

ITA 3989/DEL/2009 | misc
Pronouncement Date: 02-03-2010 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 398920114 RSA 2009
Assessee PAN AAHTS6762Q
Bench Delhi
Appeal Number ITA 3989/DEL/2009
Duration Of Justice 5 month(s) 3 day(s)
Appellant Sukriti, New Delhi
Respondent DIT(E), New Delhi
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 02-03-2010
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted G
Tribunal Order Date 02-03-2010
Date Of Final Hearing 02-03-2010
Next Hearing Date 02-03-2010
Assessment Year misc
Appeal Filed On 29-09-2009
Judgment Text
I.T.A. NO. 3976 3989 /DEL/2009 1/3 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NEW DELHI BENCH G BEFORE SHRI A.K.GARODIA ACCOUTANT MEMBER AND SHRI GEORGE MATHAN JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.3976 3989 /DEL/2009 (ASSESSMENT YEAR) M/S. SUKRITI VS. DIT (EXEMPTION) 1799 GIANI BAZAR DELHI KOTLA MUBARAKPUR NEW DELHI-110 092 (APPELLANTS) (RESPONDENTS) PAN / GIR NO. AAHTS6762Q APPELLANT BY: NONE RESPONDENT BY: SHRI J P JANGI SR. DR ORDER PER GEORGE MATHAN JM: 1. THESE APPEALS BY THE ASSESSEE HAVE BEEN PREFERRE D AGAINST THE ORDER OF DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) N EW DELHI DATED 24.07.2009. 2. THIS CASE WAS LISTED FOR HEARING BEFORE THE TRIB UNAL ON 02.03.2010 AND THE NOTICE OF HEARING WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE BY COURIER SERVICE ON 04.01.2010 AT THE AD DRESS GIVEN IN FORM NO.36 OF THE MEMO OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE WHICH HAS NOT RETURNED BY THE POSTAL AUTH ORITIES UNDELIVERED. NO CHANGE OF ADDRESS HAS BEEN INFORME D BY I.T.A. NO. 3976 3989 /DEL/2009 2/3 THE ASSESSEE AS PER RECORDS. BUT TODAY I.E. ON 0 2.03.2010 WHEN THE CASE WAS CALLED ON BOARD NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE NOR ANY REQUEST FOR ADJOURNM ENT HAS BEEN FILED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. IT SEEMS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED IN PROSECUTING HIS APPEALS HENCE TH E APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE LIABLE TO BE DISMISSED F OR NON- PROSECUTION. OUR ABOVE VIEW FINDS SUPPORT FROM THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS:- 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 APPEAL 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 M ADE AT THE INSTANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IN DEFAULT MADE FOL LOWING OBSERVATION IN THEIR 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 REFERENCE THE COURT IS NOT BOUND TO ANSWER THE REFERENCE. 3. IN THE CASE OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX VS. MU LTIPLAN INDIA (P.) LTD.; 38 ITD 320 (DEL.) THE APPEAL FILE D BY THE REVENUE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL WHICH WAS FIXED FOR HE ARING. BUT ON THE DATE OF HEARING NOBODY REPRESENTED THE REVENUE/APPELLANT NOR ANY COMMUNICATION FOR ADJOURN MENT I.T.A. NO. 3976 3989 /DEL/2009 3/3 WAS RECEIVED. THERE WAS NO COMMUNICATION OR INFORMATION AS TO WHY THE REVENUE CHOSE TO REMAIN A BSENT ON THAT DATE. THE TRIBUNAL ON THE BASIS OF INHEREN T POWERS TREATED THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE AS UNADMITT ED IN VIEW OF THE PROVISION OF RULE 19 OF THE APPELLATE R ULES 1963. 4. IN THE RESULT BOTH THE APPEALS FILED BY THE A SSESSEE ARE DISMISSED FOR NON-PROSECUTION. 5. THIS DECISION WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT O N 02 ND MAR. 2010. SD./- SD./- (A.K.GARODIA) (GEORGE MATHAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED:02 ND MAR. 2010 SP. COPY FORWARDED TO 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT TRUE COPY: BY ORDER 4. CIT(A) 5. DR DY. REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI