CA Loan Bajaj Finserv
CA Final Online Classes
CA Classes

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More

Non prosecution can cause the appeal to be dismissed

LinkedIn


Court :
INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

Brief :
Having regard to Rule 19(2) of ITAT Rules, 1963 and following various decision of the Tribunal including in the case of C.I.T. vs. Multiplan India (P) Ltd., reported in 38 ITD 320 (Del.) and the judgement of Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Estate of late Tukojirao Holkar vs. CWT; 223 ITR 480 (M.P.), we treat both the appeals of the assessee as un-admitted and dismiss the same.

Citation :
Emerson Process Management Power & Water Solutions India Pvt. Ltd., Windsor IT Park, Tower-A, Ground & 1st Floor, A-I, Sector-125, Noida – 201 301 (PAN: AAACW 2693N) (Appellant) Vs. ACIT, Ward 18(3), New Delhi (Respondent)

 

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELATE TRIBUNAL

DELHI BENCH “B”: NEW DELHI

 

BEFORE SHRI U.B.S. BEDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER &

SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

 

ITA Nos. 3264 & 3265/Del/2010

A.Yrs.: 2002-03 & 2003-04

 

Emerson Process Management Power &

Water Solutions India Pvt. Ltd.,

Windsor IT Park, Tower-A, Ground & 1st

Floor, A-I, Sector-125, Noida – 201 301

(PAN: AAACW 2693N)

(Appellant)

 

Vs.

 

 ACIT, Ward 18(3),

New Delhi

 (Respondent)

 

Assessee by: None

Department by: Sh. Vikas Suryavanshi, Sr. D.R.

 

O R D E R

PER U.B.S. BEDI: JM

 

These appeals of the assessee emanate from separate orders passed by the Ld. CIT(A)-XX, New Delhi dated 29.4.2010 and other dated 26.5.2010 for the assessment years 2002-03 and 2003-04 respectively.

 

2. Despite having got adjourned cases from 8.6.2012 to 28.6.2012, nobody appeared, nor any adjournment request has been received, when the case was called up for hearing. Therefore, we infer that assessee is not interested in prosecuting these appeals.

 

3. Having regard to Rule 19(2) of ITAT Rules, 1963 and following various decision of the Tribunal including in the case of C.I.T. vs. Multiplan India (P) Ltd., reported in 38 ITD 320 (Del.) and the judgement of Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Estate of late Tukojirao Holkar vs. CWT; 223 ITR 480 (M.P.), we treat both the appeals of the assessee as un-admitted and dismiss the same.

 

4. The assessee, if so desired, shall be free to move this Tribunal praying for recalling this order and explaining reasons for non-compliance etc. then this order may be recalled.

 

5. In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee, are dismissed, for non-prosecution.

 

Order pronounced in the Open Court on 28/6/2012, soon after conclusion of hearing.

 

                                                        Sd/-                  Sd/-

                                        [SHAMIM YAHYA] [U.B.S. BEDI]

                             ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER

Date: 28/6/2012

SRBhatnagar

 

Copy forwarded to: -

 

1. Appellant

2. Respondent

3. CIT

4. CIT (A)

5. DR, ITAT

 

TRUE COPY

 

By Order,

Assistant Registrar, ITAT, Delhi Benches

 

CS Bijoy
on 30 July 2012
Published in Income Tax
Views : 1645
Report Abuse

LinkedIn







Trending Tags