 | Absence of interest for prosecution may cause for dismissal |
| Posted on 02 May 2013 by Diganta Paul | |
CourtINCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BriefThe appeal was fixed for hearing on 21.11.2011 when the case was adjourned at the request of the assessee's counsel to 22.03.2012. Thereafter, the Bench did not function and the hearing was fixed on 25.07.2012. On 25.07.2012, the matter was adjourned to 01.11.2012 at the request of the assessee's counsel. Again on 01.11.2012, there was a written request of the assessee's counsel praying for adjournment and thus, the matter was adjourned to 21.03.2013. However, at the time of hearing today i.e. 21.03.2012, neither anybody appeared on behalf of the assessee nor there was any request for adjournment. In view of the above, we are of the opinion that assessee is not interested in prosecuting this appeal. While taking this view, we derive support from the decision of Hon'ble Delhi Bench of ITAT in the case of CIT vs. Multiplan (India) Pvt. Ltd., 38 ITD 320 (Del). Accordingly, we dismiss the assessee's appeal in limine CitationSmt.Aruna Rani, W/o Shri Anil Kumar, C/o K.L.Aneja, Advocate, Flat No.92C, Block-B, Pkt-W, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi – 110 088. (Appellant) Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3, Aykar Bhawan, HUDA,Panipat. (Respondent) Judgement IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH 'H': NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI G.D.AGRAWAL, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI I.C.SUDHIR, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.4198/Del/2011 Assessment Year: 2000-01 Smt.Aruna Rani, W/o Shri Anil Kumar, C/o K.L.Aneja, Advocate, Flat No.92C, Block-B, Pkt-W, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi – 110 088. (Appellant) Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3, Aykar Bhawan, HUDA, Panipat. (Respondent) Appellant by: None. Respondent by: Shri A.K.Mishra, CIT-DR. ORDER PER G.D.AGRAWAL, VP: This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of learned CIT(A), Karnal dated 2nd August, 2011 for the AY 2000-01.\ 2. The appeal was fixed for hearing on 21.11.2011 when the case was adjourned at the request of the assessee's counsel to 22.03.2012. Thereafter, the Bench did not function and the hearing was fixed on 25.07.2012. On 25.07.2012, the matter was adjourned to 01.11.2012 at the request of the assessee's counsel. Again on 01.11.2012, there was a written request of the assessee's counsel praying for adjournment and thus, the matter was adjourned to 21.03.2013. However, at the time of hearing today i.e. 21.03.2012, neither anybody appeared on behalf of the assessee nor there was any request for adjournment. In view of the above, we are of the opinion that assessee is not interested in prosecuting this appeal. While taking this view, we derive support from the decision of Hon'ble Delhi Bench of ITAT in the case of CIT vs. Multiplan (India) Pvt. Ltd., 38 ITD 320 (Del). Accordingly, we dismiss the assessee's appeal in limine. 3. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed in limine. Decision pronounced in the open Court on conclusion of hearing on 21st March, 2013. Sd/- Sd/- (I.C.SUDHIR) (G.D.AGRAWAL) JUDICIAL MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT Dated: 21.03.2013 VK. Copy forwarded to:- 1. Appellant: Smt.Aruna Rani, W/o Shri Anil Kumar, C/o K.L.Aneja, Advocate, Flat No.92C, Block-B, Pkt-W, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi – 110 088. 2. Respondent: Income Tax Officer, Ward-3, Aykar Bhawan, HUDA, Panipat. 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT Assistant Registrar |
__._,_.___
No comments:
Post a Comment