Cooperative Cane Development Society Ltd, v. CIT,

I.T.A. NO.560 & 561 /DEL/08 1/3 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH C NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI A.D. JAIN JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A.K. GARODIA ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO.560 & 561 /DEL/2008 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008-09 CO-OPERATIVE CANE DEV. CIT UNION LTD. AND MUZAFFARNAGAR. CO-OPERATIVE CANE DEV. SOCIETY LTD. MORNA MUZAFFARNAGAR. V. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI NONE. RESPONDENT BY : SMT. MONA MOHANTY SR. DR. ORDER PER A.K. GARODIA AM: BOTH THESE APPEALS ARE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE CASES OF TWO DIFFERENT ASSESSES AND THESE APPEALS ARE DIRECTED AGAINST SEP ARATE ORDER OF LD CIT MUZAFFARNAGAR DATED 28.5.2007 IN THE CASE OF CO-OPE RATIVE CANE DEV. SOCIETY LTD. AND DATED 31.5.2007 IN THE CASE OF CO-OPERATI VE CANE DEV. UNION LTD. IN BOTH THESE CASES NOTICE OF HEARING WERE SENT ON 18 .3.2010 FIXING THE DATE OF HEARING ON 28.4.2010. THE NOTICES WERE SENT AT THE ADDRESS STATED BY THE ASSESSEE IN FORM NO.36. THE NOTICE HAS NOT COME BAC K UN-SERVED AND NO CHANGE IN ADDRESS HAS BEEN INTIMATED TO THE TRIBUNA L AND THEREFORE THE SERVICE OF NOTICE IS PRESUMED. IN SPITE OF THIS NONE APPE ARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE ON THIS DATE OF HEARING AND THERE IS NO REQUEST FOR ADJOURNMENT. UNDER THESE . I.T.A. NO560 & 561/DEL/08 2/3 FACTS WE INFER THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED IN GETTING THE APPEAL PROSECUTED. HON'BLE MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT IN T HE CASE OF TUKOJIRAO HOLKAR V. CWT 223 ITR 480 (MP) WHILE DISMISSING THE REFERE NCE MADE AT THE INSTANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IN DEFAULT MADE THE FOLLOWING OBSERVAT IONS: 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 BOOK SO AS TO ENABLE HEARING OF THE REFERENCE THE COURT IS NOT B OUND TO ANSWER THE REFERENCE. 2. ITAT DELHI BENCH D IN THE CASE OF CIT V. MULTI PLAN INDIA (P) LTD. OBSERVED THAT THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 19 STATE THAT MERE ISSUE OF NOTICE COULD NOT BY ITSELF MEAN THAT THE APPEAL HAD BEEN ADMITTED. T HIS RULE ONLY CLARIFIES THE POSITION. THERE MIGHT BE VARIOUS REASONS WITH THE A PPELLANT TO REMAIN ABSENT AT THE TIME OF HEARING. ONE OF THE REASONS MIGHT ALSO BE A DESIRE OR ABSENCE OF NEED TO PROSECUTE THE APPEAL OR LIABILITY TO ASSIST THE TRIBUNAL IN A PROPER MANNER OR TO TAKE BENEFIT OF VAGARIES OF LAW. 3. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE PRECEDENTS THE APPEA L FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS TREATED AS UN-ADMITTED AND DISMISSED IN LIMINE. WE MAY LIKE TO CLARIFY THAT SUBSEQUENTLY IF THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINS THE REASONS F OR NON APPEARANCE AND IF THE BENCH IS SO SATISFIED THE MATTER MAY BE RECALLED F OR THE PURPOSE OF ADJUDICATION OF THE APPEAL. 4. IN THE RESULT THE APPEALS ARE DISMISSED FOR NON PROSECUTION. 5. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON THE DATE OF HE ARING I.E. 28 TH APRIL 2010. SD/- SD/- (A.D. JAIN) (A.K. GA RODIA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DT. 28.4.2010. HMS . I.T.A. NO560 & 561/DEL/08 3/3 COPY FORWARDED TO:- 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT 4. THE CIT (A)- NEW DELHI. 5. THE DR ITAT LOKNAYAK BHAWAN KHAN MARKET NEW DELHI. TRUE COPY. BY ORDER (ITAT NEW DELHI).