M/s. Anirudh Overseas Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi v. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 5990/DEL/2014 | 2005-2006
Pronouncement Date: 22-11-2017 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 599020114 RSA 2014
Bench Delhi
Appeal Number ITA 5990/DEL/2014
Duration Of Justice 3 year(s) 16 day(s)
Appellant M/s. Anirudh Overseas Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi
Respondent ITO, New Delhi
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 22-11-2017
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Tags No record found
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted A
Tribunal Order Date 22-11-2017
Assessment Year 2005-2006
Appeal Filed On 05-11-2014
Judgment Text
PAGE | 1 INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH A : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S.SIDHU JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 5990/DEL/2014 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2005 - 06 ) M/S. ANIRUDH OVERSEAS PVT. LTD 26A SADHANA ENCLAVE NEW DELHI 110017 VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD - 1(4) CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDING NEW DELHI (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : NONE REVENUE BY: SHRI RAJEEV KUMAR SR. DR DATE OF HEARING 21/11 /2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 2 2 / 11 /2017 O R D E R PER PRASHANT MAHARISHI A. M. 1. THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD CIT(A) - IV NEW DELHI DATED 27.08.2014 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005 - 06. 2. TODAY I.E. ON 20.11.2017 WHEN THIS CASE WAS CALLED ON BOARD NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE NOR ANY REQUEST FOR ADJOURNMENT HAS BEEN FILED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. IT SEEMS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED IN PROSECUTING THE APPEAL; HENCE THE APPEAL FILED BY TH E ASSESSEE IS LIABLE TO BE UN - ADMITTED AND DISMISSED FOR NON - PROSECUTION. IN OUR ABOVE VIEW WE FIND SUPPORT FROM THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS: - (I). IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. B.N. BHATTACHARGEE & ANOTHER 118 ITR 461 (RELEVANT PAGES 477 & 478) WHEREIN THEIR LORDSHIPS HAVE HELD THAT THE APPEAL DOES NOT MEAN MERELY FILING OF APPEAL BUT EFFECTIVELY PURSUING IT. (II). IN THE CASE OF ESTATE OF LATE TUKOJI RAO HOLKER VS. CWT 223 ITR 480 (MP) WHILE DISMISSING THE REFERENCE MADE AT THE INSTANCE OF ASSESSEE IN DEFAU LT MADE FOLLOWING OBSERVATIONS IN THEIR ORDER: IF THE PARTY AT WHOSE INSTANCE THE REFERENCE IS MADE FAILS TO APPEAR AT THE HEARING OR FAILS IN TAKING STEPS FOR PREPARATION OF THE PAPER BOOKS SO AS TO ENABLE HEARING OF THE REFERENCE THIS COURT IS NOT BO UND TO ANSWER THE REFERENCE. (III). IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. MULTIPLAN INDIA PVT. 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 / APPLICANT N OR ANY COMMUNICATION FOR PAGE | 2 ADJOURNMENT WAS RECEIVED. THERE WAS NO COMMUNICATION OR INFORMATION AS TO WHY REVENUE CHOOSE TO REMAIN ABSENT ON THAT DATE. THE TRIBUNAL ON THE BASIS OF INHERENT POWER TREATED THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE AS UN - ADMITTED IN VIEW OF RULE 19 OF THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RULES 1963. 3. THEREFORE KEEPING IN VIEW THE ABOVE THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED FOR NON - PROSECUTION. THE ASSESSEE IF SO ADVISED SHALL BE FREE TO MOVE THIS TRIBUNAL PRAYING FOR RECALLING OF THIS ORDER AND EXPLAINING THE REASONS FOR NON - COMPLIANCE ETC. AND IF THE BENCH IS SO SATISFIED ABOUT THE REASONS ETC THEN THIS ORDER SHALL BE RECALLED. 4. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 2 2 / 11 /2017. - S D / - - S D / - ( H.S.SIDHU ) (PRASHANT MAHARISHI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 2 2 / 11 /2017 A K KEOT COPY FORWARDED TO 1. APPLICANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR:ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI