Rule 19(2) is applicable in the case where appellant is not interested in the proseqution

Last updated: 21 May 2012

Court :
INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

Brief :
Despite sending notice of hearing sufficiently in advance, assessee did not appear nor any application for adjournment has been received at the time of hearing of the appeal, in spite of the fact that earlier also on 23.3.2011 and 10.8.2011, the appeal was adjourned due to various reasons including at the request of the assessee itself. Thus, it is inferred that the assessee is not interested in prosecution of the present appeal

Citation :
M/s Shri Chatrapati Shivaji Maharaja Memorial National Committee, Chatrapti Sivaji Bhawan, B-14/A, Qutab Institutional Area, New Delhi.110 016. (PAN/GIR No.AAFT3397H) (Appellant) Vs. ITO (E), Trust Ward 1, New Delhi (Respondent)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

(DELHI BENCH `G’: NEW DELHI)

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

SHRI B.C. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

ITA No.295/Del./2011

(Assessment Year: 2006-07)

M/s Shri Chatrapati Shivaji Maharaja

Memorial National Committee,

Chatrapti Sivaji Bhawan,

B-14/A, Qutab Institutional Area,

New Delhi.110 016.

(PAN/GIR No.AAFT3397H)

(Appellant)

Vs.

ITO (E), Trust Ward 1,

New Delhi

(Respondent)

Assessee by: None

Revenue by: Shri S. Mohanty, DR

ORDER

PER U.B.S. BEDI, J.M.

This appeal of the assessee emanates from the order of the CIT (A)-XXI, New Delhi dated 10.11.2010, relevant to assessment year 2006-07.

2. Despite sending notice of hearing sufficiently in advance, assessee did not appear nor any application for adjournment has been received at the time of hearing of the appeal, in spite of the fact that earlier also on 23.3.2011 and 10.8.2011, the appeal was adjourned due to various reasons including at the request of the assessee itself. Thus, it is inferred that the assessee is not interested in prosecution of the present appeal.

3. Having regard to Rule 19(2) of ITAT Rules, 1963 and following various decisions of the Tribunal including in the case of CIT vs. Multiplan India (P) Ltd., reported in 38 ITD 320 (Del.) and the judgment of Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Estate of late Tukojirao Holkar vs. CWT, 223 I.T.R. 480 (MP), we treat the appeal of the assessee as unadmitted and dismiss the same.

4. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed for want of prosecution.

Order pronounced in open court soon after the conclusion of the hearing on 14.05.2012.

Sd/- Sd/-

(BC. MEENA) (U.B.S. BEDI)

ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER

Dated: May 14, 2012

SKB

Copy of the order forwarded to:-

1. Appellant

2. Respondent

3. CIT

4. CIT (A)-XXI, New Delhi.