Rani Devi Jain Prop., Rohtak v. ITO, Rohtak

ITA 1359/DEL/2010 | 2006-2007
Pronouncement Date: 31-05-2010 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 135920114 RSA 2010
Bench Delhi
Appeal Number ITA 1359/DEL/2010
Duration Of Justice 2 month(s) 1 day(s)
Appellant Rani Devi Jain Prop., Rohtak
Respondent ITO, Rohtak
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 31-05-2010
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted F
Tribunal Order Date 31-05-2010
Date Of Final Hearing 18-12-2013
Next Hearing Date 18-12-2013
Assessment Year 2006-2007
Appeal Filed On 29-03-2010
Judgment Text
I.T.A. NO.1359/DEL/2010 1/3 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NEW DELHI BENCH F BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A K GARODIA ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 1359/DEL/2010 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07) RANI DEVI JIAN PROP. VS. ITO WARD 2 M/S. JAIN AGRO ROHTAK JHAJJAR ROAD ROHTAK HARYANA-124001 (APPELLANTS) (RESPONDENTS) APPELLANT BY: NONE RESPONDENT BY: MS. ANUSHA KHURANA SR. DR ORDER PER A. K. GARODIA AM: 1. THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN DIRECTED AG AINST THE ORDER DATED 21.01.2010 OF CIT(A) ROHTAK FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. 2. THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE WAS FILED ON 29.0 3.2010. AT THE TIME OF RECEIVING THE APPEAL AN ACKNOWLEDGEMENT CU M NOTICE WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE IN WHICH DATE OF HEARING WAS ALSO INTIMATED BEING 31 ST MAY 2010. IN SPITE OF THIS NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE DATE OF HEARING. NO CHANGE OF ADDRESS HAS BEEN INTIMATED. NO 2/3 REQUEST FOR ADJOURNMENT HAS BEEN MADE. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES IT SEEMS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT IN TERESTED IN PROSECUTING HER APPEAL; HENCE THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS LIABLE TO BE DISMISSED FOR NON-PROSECU TION. IN OUR ABOVE VIEW WE FIND SUPPORT FROM THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS:- 1. IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. B.N. BHATTACHARGEE AND AN OTHER 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 V S. CWT; 223 ITR 480 (M.P.) WHILE DISMISSING THE REFERENCE M ADE AT THE INSTANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IN DEFAULT MADE FOL LOWING OBSERVATION IN THEIR ORDER:- IF THE PARTY AT WHOSE INSTANCE THE REFERENCE IS M ADE FAILS TO APPEAR AT THE HEARING OR FAILS IN TAKING STEPS FOR PREPARATION OF THE REFERENCE THE COURT IS NOT BOUND TO ANSWER THE REFERENCE. 3. IN THE CASE OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX VS. MU LTIPLAN INDIA (P.) LTD.; 38 ITD 320 (DEL.) THE APPEAL FILE D BY THE REVENUE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL WHICH WAS FIXED FOR HEARING. BUT ON THE DATE OF HEARING NOBODY REPRESE NTED THE REVENUE/APPELLANT NOR ANY COMMUNICATION FOR ADJOURNMENT WAS RECEIVED. THERE WAS NO 3/3 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 UNADMITTED IN VIEW OF THE PROVISION OF R ULE 19 OF THE APPELLATE RULES 1963. 4. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASS ESSEE IS DISMISSED FOR NON-PROSECUTION. 5. THIS DECISION WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT O N 31 ST MAY 2010. SD./- SD./- (RAJPAL YADAV) (A K GARODIA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED:31 ST MAY 2010 SP. COPY FORWARDED TO 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT TRUE COPY: BY ORDER 4. CIT(A) 5. DR DY. REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI