Rajesh M.Dudani, v. DCIT, CC 18,

ITSSA 246/DEL/2006 | misc
Pronouncement Date: 13-12-2010 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 24620116 RSA 2006
Bench Delhi
Appeal Number ITSSA 246/DEL/2006
Duration Of Justice 3 year(s) 11 month(s) 15 day(s)
Appellant Rajesh M.Dudani,
Respondent DCIT, CC 18,
Appeal Type Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
Pronouncement Date 13-12-2010
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted G
Tribunal Order Date 13-12-2010
Date Of Final Hearing 10-04-2017
Next Hearing Date 10-04-2017
Assessment Year misc
Appeal Filed On 29-12-2006
Judgment Text
IT(SS)A NO. 246/DEL/2006 BLOCK PERIOD : 1.4.96 TO 18.12.2002 1 IN THE INCOMETAX APPELATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH G: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI A.D. JAIN JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA ACCOUNTANT MEMBER IT(SS)A NO. 246/DEL/2006 BLOCK PERIOD : 1.4.1996 TO 18.12.2002 MR. RAJESH M. DUDANI VS. DY. COMMISSIONER OF IN COME TAX H.NO. 195 2 ND FLOOR CENTRAL CIRCLE 18 ASHOK VIHAR PHASE-I NEW DELHI NEW DELHI (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : NONE DEPARTMENT BY : SH. GAJANAND MEENA C.I.T.(D.R.) O R D E R PER SHAMIM YAHYA : AM THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THIS APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDE R DATED 31.10.2006 PASSED BY THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOM E TAX (APPEALS-III) NEW DELHI PERTAINING TO BLOCK PERIOD 1.4.1996 TO 1 8.12.2002. 2. THIS CASE WAS LISTED FOR HEARING BEFORE THE TRIB UNAL ON 13-12-2010 AND FOR THIS DATE NOTICE OF HEARING WAS SENT BY REGISTE RED POST TO THE ASSESSEE. TODAY I.E. ON 13-12-2010 WHEN THE CASE WAS CALLED O N BOARD NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE NOR ANY REQUEST FOR ADJOU RNMENT HAS BEEN FILED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL DESPITE THE SERVICE OF NOTICE UPON THE ASSESSEE. IT SEEMS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED IN PROSECUTING HIS APPEA L; HENCE THE APPEAL FILED BY IT(SS)A NO. 246/DEL/2006 BLOCK PERIOD : 1.4.96 TO 18.12.2002 2 THE ASSESSEE IS LIABLE TO BE DISMISSED FOR NON-PRO SECUTION. IN OUR ABOVE VIEW WE FIND SUPPORT FROM THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS: 1. IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. B.N. BHATTACHARGEE AND ANOTH ER REPORTED IN 118 ITR 461 [RELEVANT PAGES 477 & 478] WHEREIN THEIR LO RDSHIPS 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 VS. 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 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 HEARING OF THE REFE RENCE THE COURT IS NOT BOUND TO ANSWER THE REFERENCE. 3. IN THE CASE OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX VS. MULTI PLAN INDIA (P) LTD.; 38 ITD 320 (DEL) THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE B EFORE THE TRIBUNAL WHICH WAS FIXED FOR HEARING. BUT ON THE DATE OF HE ARING NOBODY REPRESENTED THE REVENUE/APPELLANT NOR ANY COMMUNICA TION FOR ADJOURNMENT WAS RECEIVED. THERE WAS NO COMMUNICATI ON OR INFORMATION AS TO WHY THE REVENUE CHOSE TO REMAIN ABSENT ON THA T 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. IT(SS)A NO. 246/DEL/2006 BLOCK PERIOD : 1.4.96 TO 18.12.2002 3 3. THE ASSESSEE IF SO DESIRED SHALL BE FREE TO MO VE THIS TRIBUNAL PRAYING FOR RECALLING THIS ORDER AND EXPLAINING REASONS FOR NON -COMPLIANCE ETC. THEN THIS ORDER MAY BE RECALLED. 4. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED FOR NON- PROSECUTION. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 13/12/2010 UPON CONCLUSION OF THE HEARING. SD/- SD/- [A.D. JAIN) [SHAMIM YAHYA] JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATE: 13/12/ 2010 SRB COPY FORWARDED TO: - 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR ITAT TRUE COPY BY ORDER DEPUTY REGISTRAR ITAT DELHI BENCHES