Shri Rajesh Kumar, Meerut V. ITO, Meerut

ITA 1129/DEL/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7483 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 3 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 03-06-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Next Hearing Date: 08-04-2016
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 26-02-2015
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SHARVAN GOTRU

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES : F NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO: 1129/DEL/2015 AY : - 2009-10 RAJESH KUMAR VS. ITO DAULAT RAM & CO. GANJ BAZAR WARD-2( 2) MEERUT MEERUT PAN ABRPK0985A (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : NONE DEPARTMENT BY : SHR I SHARVAN GOTRU, SR. DR DATE OF HEARING : 8.4. 2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMEN T : 3.6.2016 O R D E R PER PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AG AINST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) MEERUT VIDE ORDER DATED 16.12.2014 PERTAINING TO ASSESSMEN T YEAR 2009-10. 2. HOWEVER, AT THE TIME OF HEARING NO ONE WAS PRESE NT ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. THE APPEAL WAS PASSED OVER. DESPITE THE SAME, IN THE SECOND ROUND ALSO NO ONE WAS PRESENT. 3. A PERUSAL OF THE RECORD SHOWS THAT THE DATE OF H EARING WAS INTIMATED TO THE ASSESSEE. DESPITE THE SAME NEITHER ANYONE WAS PRES ENT NOR ANY REQUEST FOR ADJOURNMENT WAS RECEIVED. FROM THE ABOVE IT IS EVID ENT THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED IN THE PROSECUTION OF APPEAL. ITA NO. 1129/DEL/2015 2 20X5 4. CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND KEEPING IN VIEW THE PR OVISIONS OF ORDER V RULE 19A OF THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RULES, AS WERE CONSIDERED IN THE CASES OF CIT VS. MULTIPLAN (INDIA) PVT. LTD., 38 ITD 320 (DEL); AND LATE TUKOJI RAO HOLKAR, 223 ITR 480 (MP), WE DISMISS THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE A SSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE, IF SO ADVISED, SHALL BE FREE TO MOVE THIS TRIBUNAL PRAYIN G FOR RECALLING OF THIS ORDER AND EXPLAINING THE REASONS FOR NON-COMPLIANCE ETC. AND IF THE BENCH IS SO SATISFIED ABOUT THE REASONS ETC., THEN THIS ORDER SHALL BE RECALLED . 5. IN THE RESULT APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DIS MISSED IN LIMINE. THIS DECISION WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN CO URT ON 3 RD JUNE, 2016 SD/- SD/- (H.S. SIDHU) (PRASHANT MAHARISHI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT M EMBER DATED: THE 3 RD JUNE, 2016 VEENA COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR BY ORDER AR REGISTRAR