IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
DELHI BENCH "B", NEW DELHI
BEFORE SHRI U.B.S. BEDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER
AND
SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
I.T.A. Nos. 491-492/ Del/
2012, 5647-5648/Del/
2011, 446-447/Del/
2012 & 5503/Del/2010
A.Yrs. : 2002-03, 2003-
04, 2004-05, 2008-
09,2005-06, 2006-07 &
2007-08
Cargill Incorporated, VS. Assistant Director of
15407, Income Tax,
McGinity Road, West Circle 1(1),
Wayzata, International
Minnesota-005391, Taxation,
New Delhi
USA
(PAN: AACCC4786G)
(APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT)
Assessee by : None.
Department by : Mrs. Sudha Kumari, CIT(DR)
ORDER
PER BENCH
These appeals filed by the assessee are directed against the
separate orders of the Ld. Assessing Officer, New Delhi
u/s. 147/143(3) read with Section 144C of the I.T. Act for the
separate assessment years.
2. At the outset, we note that there is no valid Power of Attorney in
these cases. Hence, there is no person properly authorized to argue
these cases. In these circumstances, we are of the opinion that the
assessee is not keen to pursue its appeals. Under the circumstances,
1
all the appeals are liable to be dismissed on account of non-
prosecution.
3. In our above view, we find support from the following decisions:
1. In the case of CIT vs. B.N. Bhattachargee and another, 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 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 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, the court is not bound to answer the
reference."
3. In the case of Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Multiplan India
(P) 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/appellant nor
any communication for adjournment was received. There was
no communication or information as to why the revenue chose
to remain absent on that 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.
2
4. The assessee, if so desired, shall be free to move this Tribunal
praying for recalling this order and explaining reasons for non-
compliance etc. then this order may be recalled.
5. In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee, are
dismissed, for non-prosecution.
Order pronounced in the Open Court on 17/2/2014, upon conclusion
of hearing.
Sd/- Sd/-
BEDI]
[U.B.S. BEDI] [SHAMIM YAHYA]
JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Date 17/2/2014
"SRBHATNAGAR"
Copy forwarded to: -
1. Appellant -
2. Respondent -
3. CIT
4. CIT (A)
5. DR, ITAT
TRUE COPY
By Order,
Assistant Registrar,
ITAT, Delhi Benches
3
4
|
