M/s Scantech India Pvt. Ltd.,C/o Behl & Chander,Chartered Accountants,C-50, (LGF), Panchsheel GeetanjaliRoad, Shivalik,New Delhi 110 017 vs. Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax,Noida Range, NOIDA (UP) |
ITA NO. 1651/DEL/2012
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELATE TRIBUNAL
DELHI BENCH "G": NEW DELHI
BEFORE SHRI R.P. TOLANI, JUDICIAL MEMBER &
SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
ITA No. 1651/Del/2012
A.Y. : 2003-04
M/s Scantech India Pvt. Ltd., vs. Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax,
C/o Behl & Chander, Noida Range, NOIDA (UP)
Chartered Accountants,
C-50, (LGF), Panchsheel Geetanjali
Road, Shivalik,
New Delhi 110 017
(PAN : AAHCS4330H)
(Appellant) (Respondent)
Assessee by : None
Department by : Sh. S.K. Upadhyaya, Sr. D.R.
ORDER
PER SHAMIM YAHYA: AM
The assessee has filed this appeal against the order dated 20.1.2012
passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals), Ghaziabad.
2. This case was listed for hearing before the Tribunal on 11-6-2012 and
for this assessee was informed. Today i.e. on 11-6-2012 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 despite the service of notice
upon the assessee. It seems that the assessee is not interested in prosecuting
her appeal; hence, the appeal filed by the assessee is liable to be dismissed, for
1
ITA NO. 1651/DEL/2012
non-prosecution. 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
ITA NO. 1651/DEL/2012
3. 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.
4. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee, is dismissed, for non-
prosecution.
Order pronounced in the open court on 11/6/2012, upon conclusion of
hearing.
Sd/- Sd/-
[R.P. TOLANI] [SHAMIM YAHYA]
JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Date: 11/6/2012
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
|