Case Law Details
Hemkunt Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi)
To decide nature of income received from letting out of property the deciding factor is not ownership of premises but the nature of activity of assessee and nature of operations in relation thereto. As evident from assessees memorandum, objects of the company were to buy, purchase or otherwise acquire multistoried flats, houses, buildings, etc., and to sell, mortgage, assign, pledge, lease out or otherwise dispose of on installment basis or under hire purchase agreements or in any other manner and to carry on the business of property agents. In the light of assessee’s objects rental income received by it was to be treated as business income.
FULL TEXT OF THE ITAT JUDGMENT
The assessee has filed this appeal against the order of learned CIT(A) dated 15th February, 2007 pertaining to the Asstt. Year 2001-02. This appeal filed by the assessee was earlier dismissed for want of prosecution vide order dated 25.6.2008. Thereafter, on application made by the assessee under Rule 24 of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963 read with Section 254(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act), the order of the Tribunal dated 25th June, 2008 was recalled, and the appeal was restored to its file for its fresh disposal. The Registry was directed to list the appeal for hearing on 18.5.2009, which date was noted by both the parties at the time when the order for recall the dismissed order was passed. On 18.5.2009, the matter was adjourned to 23.7.2009 at the request of learned Authorized Representative of the assessee Smt. Indira Bansal. Thereafter, the matter was adjourned to 1.9.2009, when the matter again adjourned to 6.10.2009 at the request of assessee’s counsel. On 6.10.2009, the assessee’s counsel was directed to file the brief and concise grounds of appeal adjourning the matter to 19.11.2009, when again the matter was adjourned on 8.1.2010 at the request of both the parties. Lastly, the matter came to be fixed for hearing on 3.5.2010 for which notice of hearing was issued by the Registry on 5.4.2010. The notice so issued on 5.4.2010 has not been returned unserved. It has been sent to the address of the appellant as given in the memorandum of appeal. However, on 3.5.2010, when the case was called on board, none on behalf of the assessee was nor any request for adjournment was filed . In the light of these facts, it is clear that the assessee has not at all interested in pursuing this appeal for decision, therefore, the appeal filed by the assessee is liable to be dismissed for non prosecution. We do accordingly.
2. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed for want of prosecution.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
