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


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.

5. CIT (ITAT)

Deputy Registrar, ITAT

 



Judgement posted by

Expert

Comments




CCI Pro



Company
Featured ARTICLESHIP 28 October 2026
CA- Inter and Articles

N N V Satish & Co.,

Hyderabad

CA Inter

View Details
Company
02 November 2026
Audit Executive

SRJP & Co LLP

Kochi

CA Inter

View Details
Company
16 October 2026
CA article trainee

Zerdi & Co. Chartered Accountants

Pune

CA Inter

View Details
Company
14 October 2026
GST & TDS ASSISTANT

AGGARWAL SANJAY & ASSOCIATES

New Delhi

B.Com

View Details
Company
05 October 2026
Senior Accountant

Vision IT Peripherals Pvt Ltd

Mumbai

B.Com

View Details
Company
ARTICLESHIP 07 October 2026
Article Trainee/ CMA Trainee

RMA And Associates LLP

New Delhi

CA Inter

View Details
Company
12 October 2026
Finance

I-Genext Consulting Private Limited

New Delhi

CA

View Details
Company
14 October 2026
Asst. Manager/Dy Manager (Costing)

manufacturing

Pune

CMA

View Details