M/s. Shebawheels (P) Ltd., New Delhi v. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 920/DEL/2010 | 2005-2006
Pronouncement Date: 06-05-2010 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 92020114 RSA 2010
Assessee PAN AABCS6007K
Bench Delhi
Appeal Number ITA 920/DEL/2010
Duration Of Justice 2 month(s) 1 day(s)
Appellant M/s. Shebawheels (P) Ltd., New Delhi
Respondent ITO, New Delhi
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 06-05-2010
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted G
Tribunal Order Date 06-05-2010
Assessment Year 2005-2006
Appeal Filed On 05-03-2010
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH `G : NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI A.D. JAIN JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A.K. GARODIA ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.919 & 920/DEL./2010 (ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2001-02 & 05-06) M/S SHEBAWHEELS (P) LTD. VS. ITO WARD 8(2) 701 HEMKUNT CHAMBERS NEW DELHI. NEHRU PLACE NEW DELHI. (PAN/GIR NO.AABCS6007K) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : NONE REVENUE BY : SHRI KISHORE B. SR.DR ORDER PER A.D. JAIN: JM THESE APPEALS BY THE ASSESSEE FOR AYS 200 1-02 & 05-06 ARISE OUT OF THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A)-XI NEW DELHI IN WHICH THE FOLLOWING GR OUND HAS BEEN RAISED: THAT ON FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE AUTHORITIES BELOW ERRED IN HOLDING THE ASSESSEE GUILTY U/S 271( 1)(C) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961 AND IN LEVYING PENALTY IN A SUM OF RS.3 59 905 /- FOR AY 2001-02 AND RS.4 63 420/- FOR THE AY 2005-06. THE ORDER BEING ARBITRARY ERRONEOUS AND UNJUST MUST BE QUASHED. 2. AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF THE APPEAL NEITHER TH E ASSESSEE NOR ANY OF HIS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE WERE PRESENT IN SPITE OF THE FACT TH AT THE DATE OF HEARING WAS NOTED BY THE ASSESSEE AT THE TIME OF FILING THE APPEAL ITSELF ON 5.3.2010 . IT IS THEREFORE INFERRED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED IN PURSUING THE APPE AL. THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE THEREFORE DISMISSED AS UNADMITTED FOLLOWING THE RA TIO 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 APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION. 4. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON THE CONCLUSION OF THE HEARING ON 06.05.2010. SD/- SD/- (A.K. GARODIA) (A.D. JAIN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED MAY 06 2010. SKB COPY FORWARDED TO: 1.APPELLANT 2.RESPONDENT 3.CIT 4.CIT(A)-XI NEW DELHI 5.CIT(ITAT) NEW DELHI. AR/ITAT