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: ARTICLES ON INPUT TAX CREDIT IN VAT :: empanelment :: TDS :: Central Excise rule to resale the machines to a new company :: due date for vat payment :: TAX RATES - GOODS TAXABLE @ 4% :: ICAI offer Get Windows 7,Office 2010 in Rs.799 Taxes :: list of goods taxed at 4% :: ACCOUNTING STANDARDS :: cpt :: form 3cd :: ACCOUNTING STANDARD :: articles on VAT and GST in India :: VAT Audit :: VAT RATES
 
 
From the Courts »
 Delhi High Court interprets applicability of amendments to Arbitration Act
  M/s Skin Institute And Public Services Charitable Trust Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemption)
 M/s Skin Institute And Public Services Charitable Trust Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemption)
 ITO vs. Emami Paper Mills Ltd (ITAT Kolkata)
 Surya Prakash Toshniwal HUF vs. ITO (ITAT Kolkata)
 CIT vs. Subhash Vinayak Supnekar (Bombay High Court)
 Apollo Tyres Ltd vs. ACIT (ITAT Cochin)
 CIT vs. SSA’s Emerald Meadows (Supreme Court)
 DCIT vs. M. K. Enterprise (ITAT Kolkata)
 Qad Europe B.V. vs. DDIT (ITAT Mumbai)
 Chalasani Naga Ratna Kumari vs. ITO (ITAT Vizag)a

Rajan Bhatia, Prop. M/s. Diya Enterprises, 138, Ram Nagar, Delhi 11005 Vs. DCIT Circle-35(1) New Delhi
April, 08th 2014
                     INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
                        DELHI BENCH "F": NEW DELHI
                BEFORE SHRI R.S. SYAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
                                    AND
                    SHRI A. T. VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER

                                 ITA No. 2204/Del/2013
                               (Assessment Year: 2007-08)

                Rajan Bhatia,                          DCIT
                Prop. M/s. Diya Enterprises,           Circle-35(1)
                138, Ram Nagar,                  Vs.   New Delhi
                Delhi 110051
                PAN: AHRPB3558N
                    (Appellant)                        (Respondent)

                                 Appellant by : None
                              Respondent by   : M. B. Reddy. Sr. DR


                                       ORDER

PER A. T. VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER

      This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the ld CIT(A)-
XXVII, New Delhi dated 24.12.2012 for the Assessment Year 2007-08.

2.    Today, i.e. on 01.04.2014 when the case was called on board, none
appeared on behalf of the assessee nor any request for adjournment has been
filed before the Tribunal.       It seems that the assessee is not interested in
prosecuting the appeal; hence, the appeal filed by the assessee is liable to be
un-admitted and dismissed for non-prosecution. In our above view, we find
support from the following decisions:-
      (i).    In the case of CIT Vs. B.N. Bhattachargee & Another 118 ITR 461
              (relevant pages 477 & 478) wherein their Lordships have held that
              "The appeal does not mean merely filing of appeal but effectively
              pursuing it."
(ii). In the case of Estate of Late Tukoji Rao Holker Vs. CWT 223 IR 480 (MP) while dismissing the reference made at the instance of assessee in default made following observations 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, this court is not bound to answer the reference. Page No. 2 (iii). In the case of CIT Vs. Multiplan India Pvt. 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 / applicant, nor any communication for adjournment was received. There was no communication or information as to why revenue choose to remain absent on that date. The Tribunal on the basis of inherent power treated the appeal filed by the revenue as un-admitted in view of Rule 19 of the Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963.
3. Therefore, keeping in view the above, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed for non-prosecution. The assessee, if so advised, shall be free to move this Tribunal praying for recalling of this order and explaining the reasons for non-compliance etc. and if the Bench is so satisfied about the reasons etc, then this order shall be recalled. 4. In the result, the assessee's appeal is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 01.04.2014. -Sd/- -Sd/- (R.S. SYAL) (A. T. VARKEY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated:01 /04/2014 A K Keot Copy forwarded to 1. Applicant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR:ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, New Delhi
 
 
Home | About Us | Terms and Conditions | Contact Us
Copyright 2017 CAinINDIA All Right Reserved.
Designed and Developed by Binarysoft Technologies Pvt. Ltd.
Custom Software Development Outsourcing Custom Software Development Offshore Cus

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