Vanijay Capsec Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs Assessee

1 ITA No. 5103/Del/2013 Asstt. Year: 2002-03

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH 'H' NEW DELHI

BEFORE SHRI R.S. SYAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI A.T. VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER

ITA No. 5103/Del/2013 Assessment Year: 2002-03

Shiv Vanijya Capsec Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO IV/928, Chhotta Chippiwar Ward-8 (2) Chawri Bazar, New Delhi. Delhi - 110 006. (PAN AABCS2773E) (Appellant) (Respondent)

Appellant by: None Respondent by: Shri J.P. Chandrakar, Sr. DR

ORDER

PER A.T. VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER

The above appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order of

CIT(A)-XI, New Delhi dated 10.6.2013 pertaining to AY 2002-03.

2. This appeal was fixed for hearing today on 5.1.2015 and we find that no

one was present on behalf of the assessee nor any request for adjournment was

placed before the Bench.

2 ITA No. 5103/Del/2013 Asstt. Year: 2002-03

3. It appears that the assessee is not interested in getting the appeal

prosecuted. Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Tukojirao

Holkar Vs CWT 223 ITR 480 (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."

4. 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.

5. 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.

3 ITA No. 5103/Del/2013 Asstt. Year: 2002-03

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

prosecution.

Order pronounced in the open court on 5th January, 2015.

sd/- sd/- (R.S. SYAL) (A.T. VARKEY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER

Dated 5th January, 2015 'veena' Copy of order forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT(A) 4. CIT 5. DR By Order Deputy Registrar, ITAT