Latest Expert Exchange Queries
sitemapHome | Registration | Job Portal for CA's | Expert Exchange | Currency Converter | Post Matrimonial Ads | Post Property Ads
 
 
News shortcuts: From the Courts | News Headlines | VAT (Value Added Tax) | Service Tax | Sales Tax | Placements & Empanelment | Various Acts & Rules | Latest Circulars | New Forms | Forex | Auditing | Direct Tax | Customs and Excise | ICAI | Corporate Law | Markets | Students | General | Indirect Tax | Mergers and Acquisitions | Continuing Prof. Edu. | Budget Extravaganza | Transfer Pricing
 
 
 
 
Popular Search: ICAI offer Get Windows 7,Office 2010 in Rs.799 Taxes :: list of goods taxed at 4% :: ACCOUNTING STANDARD :: ARTICLES ON INPUT TAX CREDIT IN VAT :: Central Excise rule to resale the machines to a new company :: form 3cd :: VAT Audit :: TAX RATES - GOODS TAXABLE @ 4% :: articles on VAT and GST in India :: VAT RATES :: due date for vat payment :: TDS :: ACCOUNTING STANDARDS :: empanelment :: cpt
 
 
From the Courts »
 Micro Spacematrix Solution P Ltd vs. ITO (ITAT Delhi)
 CIT vs. Greenfield Hotels & Estates Pvt. Ltd (Bombay High Court)
 IndiaBulls Financial Services Ltd vs. DCIT (Delhi High Court)
 Maharao Bhim Singh of Kota vs. CIT (Supreme Court)
 Ravneet Takhar Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax Ix And Ors.
 Jaiprakash Associates Ltd. Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax
 Formula One World Championship Limited Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax, International Taxation-3 And Anr.
 Commissioner Of Income Tax International Taxation-3 Delhi Vs. Formula One World Championship Ltd. And Anr.
 Reliance Communications Ltd vs. DDIT (ITAT Mumbai)
  Sushila Devi vs. CIT (Delhi High Court)
 Ashok Prapann Sharma vs. CIT (Supreme Court)a

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.
             (PAN AAACF1889P)
             (Appellant)                               (Respondent)

                       Appellant by       : None
                       Respondent by       :Smt. Parwinder Kaur, Sr. DR

                    Date of hearing : 17.2.2015
            Date of pronouncement : 4.3.2015


                             ORDER

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
                                                             ITA No.2294/Del/2012
                                                         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

the appeal.




4.       In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed for non-

prosecution

                     Sd/-                                Sd/-

        (T.S. KAPOOR)                               (G.C. GUPTA)
    ACCOUNTANT MEMBER                             VICE PRESIDENT
Dated: the
*veena

Copy of the Order forwarded to:

1.       Appellant


                                                                                             2
                                                               ITA No.2294/Del/2012
                                                           Fincap Portfolio Ltd. vs. ITO.

2.    Respondent
3.    CIT
4.    CIT(A)
5.    DR
6.    Guard File

                                                               By Order


                                                              Dy. Registrar



Sl.                  Description                    Date
No.

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.
      PS

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




                                                                                            3

 
 
Home | About Us | Terms and Conditions | Contact Us
Copyright 2016 CAinINDIA All Right Reserved.
Designed and Developed by Binarysoft Technologies Pvt. Ltd.
Article Management Solutions System Article Management Software S

Transfer Pricing | International Taxation | Business Consulting | Corporate Compliance and Consulting | Assurance and Risk Advisory | Indirect Taxes | Direct Taxes | Transaction Advisory | Regular Compliance and Reporting | Tax Assessments | International Taxation Advisory | Capital Structuring | Withholding tax advisory | Expatriate Tax Reporting | Litigation | Badges | Club Badges | Seals | Military Insignias | Emblems | Family Crest | Software Development India | Software Development Company | SEO Company | Web Application Development | MLM Software | MLM Solutions