Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi

Sh. Girraj Singh, New Delhi vs Acit, New Delhi on 23 May, 2017

                IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
                    DELHI BENCH - 'SMC' NEW DELHI

                BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER

                      ITA No. 654/Del/2017
                   ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2013-14


     Girraj Singh                                   ACIT,
     F-1, Police Station Hazrat                Vs. CPC,
     Nizamuddin,                                    Ward-65 (1)
     Mathura Road                                   New Delhi.
     New Delhi -110 013
     PAN ALVPS5757Q
     (Appellant)                                    (Respondent)



      Assessee by :               None
      Department by:              Ms. Badobani, Sr. DR
      Date of Hearing             23/05/2017
      Date of pronouncement       23/05/2017



Per BHAVNESH SAINI, Judicial Member

ORDER This appeal by the assessee has been directed against the order of Ld.CIT(A) - 21, New Delhi dt. 7th October, 2016 for the Assessment Year 2013-14.

2. No authorized Representative of the assessee appeared at the time of hearing of the appeal despite notifying the date of hearing through registered post. It therefore appears assessee is no more interested in prosecuting the appeal.

Girraj Singh vs. ACIT

3. Hence, the appeal filed by the assessee is liable to be dismissed for non-prosecution, finding 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 reference 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 reference filed by the revenue as un-admitted in view of the provisions of Rule 19 of the Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963."

Girraj Singh vs. ACIT

5. In the result, we treat this appeal as unadmitted and dismiss the same in limine.

Pronounced in the Open Court.

Sd/-

                                                ( BHAVNESH SAINI )
                                                 JUDICIAL MEMBER

Dated:        23/05/2017
*Veena*
Copy   forwarded to: -
1.      Appellant
2.      Respondent
3.      Principal CIT
4.      CIT(A)
5.      DR, ITAT
                            TRUE COPY                                 By Order,


                                                              ASSISTANT REGISTRAR




                                                                           Page 3 of 3