Fincap Portfolio Ltd. 222-223, Ashirwad,D-1, Green Park New Delhi. Vs. ITO Ward 11(2) C.R. Building New Delhi.
March, 09th 2015
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
DELHI BENCHES : "B" NEW DELHI
BEFORE SHRI G.C. GUPTA, VICE PRESIDENT
AND SHRI T.S. KAPOOR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
ITA No: 2294/Del/2012
AY : - 2008-09
Fincap Portfolio Ltd. vs. ITO
222-223, Ashirwad, Ward 11(2)
D-1, Green Park C.R. Building
New Delhi. New Delhi.
Appellant by : None
Respondent by :Smt. Parwinder Kaur, Sr. DR
Date of hearing : 17.2.2015
Date of pronouncement : 4.3.2015
PER G.C. GUPTA, VICE PRESIDENT
This appeal by the assessee of the assessment year 2008-09 is directed
against the order of CITA. At the time of hearing none appeared on behalf of the
assessee appellant. The application for adjournment filed by the assessee do not
show any reasonable ground for adjourning the matter wherein it has been
mentioned that the next date be given after June, 2015. In these facts the
application of the assessee for adjournment of the case was rejected by the bench.
The appeal of the assessee was adjourned many times on previous occasions at the
request of the assessee. In these facts we are of the view that the assessee does
not seem to be interested in pursuing its appeal before the Tribunal. Hon'ble
Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Tukojirao Holkar Vs CWT 223 ITR 480
Fincap Portfolio Ltd. vs. ITO.
(MP), while dismissing the reference made at the instance of the assessee in default, made
the following observations:-
"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."
2. ITAT Delhi Bench `D' in the case of CIT vs Multiplan India (P) Ltd. 38 ITD
320 observed that the provisions of Rule 19 state that mere issue of notice could
not by itself mean that the appeal had been admitted. This rule only clarifies the
position. There might be various reasons with the appellant 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 appeal 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 for non-appearance and if the
Bench is so satisfied, the matter may be recalled for the purpose of adjudication of
4. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed for non-
(T.S. KAPOOR) (G.C. GUPTA)
ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT
Copy of the Order forwarded to:
Fincap Portfolio Ltd. vs. ITO.
6. Guard File
Sl. Description Date
1. Date of dictation by the Author 17.2.2015
2. Draft placed before the Dictating Member 17.2.2015
3. Draft placed before the Second Member
4. Draft approved by the Second Member
5. Date of approved order comes to the Sr.
6. Date of pronouncement of order
7. Date of file sent to the Bench Clerk
8. Date on which file goes to the Head Clerk
9. Date of dispatch of order