M/s. Cestos Unitech Wireless (P) Ltd., New Delhi V. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 101/DEL/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 121 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2756 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 11 month(s) 28 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 04-01-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 04-01-2016
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 06-01-2014
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Reasonable cause

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: B NEW DELHI BEFORE SMT DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH.O.P.KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A .NO. - 101 /DEL/201 4 (ASSESSMENT YEAR - 2009 - 10 ) M/S CESTOS UNITECH WIRELESS P.LTD., BASEMENT - 6, COMMUNITY CENTRE, SAKET, NEW DELHI - 110017. PAN - AADCC4925C (APPELLANT) VS ITO, WARD - 3(2), NEW DELHI (RESPONDENT ) APPELLANT BY NONE RESPONDENT BY MS. RAKHI VIMAL, SR.DR ORDER PER DIVA SINGH, JM THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ASSAILING THE CORRECTNESS OF THE ORDER DATED 29.11.2013 OF CIT(A) - VI, NEW DELHI PERTAINING TO 2009 - 10 ASSESSMENT YEAR ON VARIOUS GROUNDS. 2. HOWEVER, AT THE TIME OF HEARING , NO ONE WAS PRESENT ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. THE APPEAL WAS PASSED OVER. IN THE SECOND ROUND ALSO, THE POSITION REMAINED THE SAME. THE RECORD SHOWS THAT NOTICE FOR THE DATE OF HEARING HAS BEEN SENT TO THE ASSESSEE ON 26.11.2015 AT THE ADDRESS MENTIONED IN COLUMN NO.10 WHICH IS NOT RETURNED UNSERVE D. ACCORDINGLY, IN THE PECULIAR FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE PRESENT CASE, IT CAN BE SAFELY PRESUMED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT SERIOUS IN PURSUING THE PRESENT APPEAL. ACCORDINGLY IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY REPRESENTATION OR PETITION SEEKING TIME, THE ONLY ALTERNATIVE LEFT IS TO DISMISS THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IN LIMINE. SUPPORT IS DRAWN FROM THE ORDER OF THE DATE OF HEARING 04 . 01 .201 6 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 04 . 01 .201 6 I.T.A .NO. - 1 0 1/ DEL/201 4 PAGE 2 OF 2 TRIBUNALS IN COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX VS. MULTI PLAN INDIA (P) LTD.; 38 ITD 320 (DEL) AND ESTATE OF LATE TUKOJIRAO HOLKAR VS. CWT: 223 ITR 480 (M .P). 3. BEFORE PARTING IT IS APPROPRIATE TO ADD THAT IN CASE THE ASSESSEE IS ABLE TO SHOW THAT THERE WAS A REASONABLE CAUSE FOR NON - REPRESENTATION ON THE DATE OF HEARING ; AND THE ASSESSEE IS IN A POSITION TO ADDRESS THE DELAY THEN THE ASSESSEE IF SO ADVISE D WOULD BE AT LIBERTY TO PRAY FOR A RECALL OF THIS ORDER AND DECISION ON MERIT. THE SAID ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED ON THE DATE OF HEARING ITSELF IN THE OPEN COURT. 4. IN THE RES ULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. THE ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 04 TH OF JANUARY, 2016 . SD/ - SD/ - (O.P.KANT) (DIVA SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 04/01 /201 6 * AMIT KUMAR * COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI