Friday, May 3, 2013

[aaykarbhavan] Judgment




Absence of interest for prosecution may cause for dismissal

Posted on 02 May 2013 by Diganta Paul

Court

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL


Brief

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


Citation

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)


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


__._,_.___


receive alert on mobile, subscribe to SMS Channel named "aaykarbhavan"
[COST FREE]
SEND "on aaykarbhavan" TO 9870807070 FROM YOUR MOBILE.

To receive the mails from this group send message to aaykarbhavan-subscribe@yahoogroups.com




Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe

__,_._,___

No comments:

Post a Comment