M/s Shree Balaji Woollen Mills, Panipat V. ACIT, Panipat

ITA 1238/DEL/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 65928 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 8 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-11-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Next Hearing Date: 26-11-2012
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 10-03-2011
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SUMANA SENDR
• Keywords: Period of limitation; Reasonable cause; Right to appeal; Time period of passing order; Condonation of delay

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI G BENC H BEFORE SHRI A.N. PAHUJA, AM & SHRI C.M.GARG, JM (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY NONE REVENUE BY SMT. SUMANA SEN,DR DATE OF HEARING 26-11-2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 26-11-2012 O R D E R A.N.PAHUJA:- THESE TWO APPEALS FILED ON 10.3.2011 BY THE ASSES SEE AGAINST TWO SEPARATE ORDERS DATED 4-07-2008 & 17.12.2010 OF THE LD. CIT(A)-KARNAL, FOR THE AY 2005-06 RESPECTIVELY, RAISE GROUNDS RELATING TO THE DISALLOWANCE OF ` 1,40,889 ON ACCOUNT OF FOREIGN TRAVEL EXPENSES AND LEVY OF PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT,1961[HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT] IN RELATION TO THE AFORESAID DISALLOWANCE OF FOREIGN TRAVEL EXPENSES. 2. THESE APPEALS EARLIER DISPOSED OF VIDE ORDER D ATED 2.6.2011,WERE RECALLED VIDE ORDER DATED 28.9.2012 IN MA NOS. 273 & 274/DEL ./2011. THE QUANTUM APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITA NO.1238/DEL./20 11 IS DELAYED BY 902 DAYS. THOUGH THE ASSESSEE MENTIONED IN GROUND NO.3 IN TH E APPEAL THAT THERE WAS REASONABLE CAUSE FOR DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL, NO T EVEN A WHISPER HAS BEEN MADE IN THE DOCUMENTS ANNEXED WITH THE APPEAL AS TO WHAT WAS THE REASONABLE CAUSE NOR ANY APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY OF 902 DAYS IN FILING THE APPEAL HAS BEEN SUBMITTED EVER SINCE APPEAL WAS FIL ED ON 10.3.2011. NONE ITA NOS.1238 & 1239/DEL/2011 AY:2005-06 M/S SHREE BALAJI WOOLLEN MILLS,KABRI ROAD,PANIPAT V/S . ACIT, PANIPAT CIRCLE, PANIPAT [PAN : AADFS8238B] I.T.A. NOS1238 & 1239/DEL./2011 2 APPEARED BEFORE US ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE EVEN W HEN DATE OF HEARING WAS SPECIFICALLY INFORMED TO THE LD. AR ON BEHALF OF TH E ASSESSEE WHEN HE APPEARED ON 22.11.2012. AS IS EVIDENT FROM THE AFORESAID FA CTS, QUANTUM APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DELAYED BY 902 DAYS WHILE NO REQUES T HAS BEEN MADE BY THE ASSESSEE FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING THE APP EAL. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, THERE BEING NO SUFFICIENT CAUSE FOR DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL, THE APPEAL CANNOT BE ADMITTED. REGARDING SUFFICIENT CAUSE,IN THE CASE OF GOPAL FILMS VS. CIT AND OTHERS,237 ITR 655(KAR) IT WAS HELD BY THE HONBLE COURT THAT WHENEVER A PARTY WANTS DELAY TO BE CONDONED, HE SHOULD SHOW SUFFICIENT CAUSE. IF NO CAUSE IS SHOWN AT ALL, THE ONLY CONCLUSION THAT CAN BE REACHED IS THAT THE DELAY CANNOT BE CONDONED, PARTI CULARLY WHEN LACK OF BONA FIDES IS EVIDENT. 2.1 IT IS WELL ESTABLISHED THAT THE ONUS IS ALWA YS ON THE ASSESSEE TO PROVE THE EXISTENCE OF SUFFICIENT CAUSE AND THERE IS NO PRESU MPTION THAT THE DELAY OCCASIONED IN THE FILING OF THE APPEAL IS ALWAYS BO NA FIDE . THE LAW OF LIMITATION PRESCRIBED IN THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 253(5) OF T HE ACT ENVISAGES THAT THERE SHOULD HAVE BEEN A SUFFICIENT CAUSE FOR NOT PRESENT ING THE APPEAL WITHIN THE PERIOD AS PRESCRIBED. IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE ASSE SSEE HAS FAILED TO SHOW SUFFICIENT CAUSE FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY AND INACT ION AS ALSO NEGLIGENCE GALORE. IT IS THE PARTY CONCERNED TO SUBSTANTIATE THE REASO NS FOR DELAY AND IT IS NOT THE FUNCTION OF THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY TO FIND THE CAU SE OF THE DELAY. THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY HAS TO EXAMINE, WHETHER SUFFICIENT CAUSE HAS BEEN SHOWN BY THE PARTY FOR CONDONING THE DELAY AND WHETHER SUCH CAUSE IS A CCEPTABLE OR NOT. INACTION AND WANT OF DILIGENCE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSE WO ULD NOT ENTITLE THE ASSESSEE TO THE BENEFIT OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 253(5) OF THE ACT. 2.2. IN THE CASE OF SITARAM RAM CHARAN [1959-60] 17 FJR 379 ; AIR 1960 SC 260, THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT OBSERVED THA T THE WHOLE OF THE PERIOD OF DELAY WAS REQUIRED TO BE EXPLAINED, WHICH WOULD INDICATE EVEN THE PERIOD PRESCRIBED BY THE LAW OF LIMITATION. I.T.A. NOS1238 & 1239/DEL./2011 3 2.3. IN THE CASE OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX.VS RAM MOHAN KABRA,257 ITR 773(PUNJAB& HARYANA), IT WAS OBSERVED BY THE HONBLE COURT AS UNDER: THE PROVISIONS RELATING TO PRESCRIPTION OF LIMI TATION IN EVERY STATUTE MUST NOT BE CONSTRUED SO LIBERALLY THAT IT WOULD HAVE THE EFFEC T OF TAKING AWAY THE BENEFIT ACCRUING TO THE OTHER PARTY IN A MECHANICAL MANNER. WHERE THE LEGISLATURE SPELLS OUT A PERIOD OF LIMITATION AND PROVIDES FOR POWER T O CONDONE THE DELAY AS WELL, THERE SUCH DELAY CAN BE CONDONED ONLY FOR SUFFICIEN T AND GOOD REASONS SUPPORTED BY COGENT AND PROPER EVIDENCE. NOW IT IS A SETTLED PRINCIPLE OF LAW THAT THE PROVISIONS RELATING TO SPECIFIED PERIOD OF LIMI TATION MUST BE APPLIED WITH THEIR RIGOUR AND EFFECTIVE CONSEQUENCES. 2.31 IN THIS REGARD, REFERENCE CAN BE MADE TO THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF P.K. RAMACHANDRAN V. STATE OF KERALA, AIR 1998 SC 2 276. THE RELEVANT PORTION READS AS UNDER: LAW OF LIMITATION MAY HARSHLY AFFECT A PARTICULAR PARTY BUT IT HAS TO BE APPLIED WITH ALL ITS RIGOUR WHEN THE STATUTE SO PRESCRIBES AND THE COURTS HAVE NO POWER TO EXTEND THE PERIOD OF LIMITATION ON EQUITABLE GROUNDS. THE DISCRETION EXERCISED BY THE HIGH COURT, WAS, THUS, NEITHER PROPER NOR JUDICIOUS. THE ORDER CONDONING THE DELAY CANNOT BE S USTAINED. THIS APPEAL, THEREFORE, SUCCEEDS AND THE IMPUGNED ORDER IS SET A SIDE. CONSEQUENTLY, THE APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY FILED IN THE H IGH COURT WOULD STAND REJECTED AND THE MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL SHALL ST AND DISMISSED AS BARRED BY TIME. NO COSTS.' 2.4 THE ITAT, IN THE CASE OF SRI VENKATESA PAPER AND BOARDS LTD. VS. DCIT,98 ITD 200, HELD THAT IN GRANTING INDULGE NCE AND CONDONATION OF DELAY, APPELLATE AUTHORITY MUST BE SATISFIED THAT THERE H AD BEEN DILIGENCE ON THE PART OF THE APPELLANT. IN THE INSTANT CASE, THERE IS NO MAT ERIAL BEFORE US, ESTABLISHING DILIGENCE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE, EVEN WHEN SP ECIFIC OPPORTUNITY WAS ALLOWED TO THE ASSESSEE. 2.5 IN THE CASE OF VINAY EXTRACTION (P) LTD. V. VIJAY KHANNA [2004] 271 ITR 450 (GUJ) , IT WAS HELD BY THE HONBLE HIGH COURT THA T IT IS TRUE THAT THE APEX COURT HAS HELD THAT THE COURT SHOULD ADOPT A LIBERAL APPROACH IN CONSIDERING THE APPLICATION FOR CONDONA TION OF DELAY AND THAT I.T.A. NOS1238 & 1239/DEL./2011 4 SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE DESERVES TO BE PREFERRED OVER T ECHNICAL CONSIDERATIONS. HOWEVER, IT IS EQUALLY WELL SETTLED THAT A PERSON I NVOKING THE DISCRETION OF THE APPELLATE OR REVISIONAL AUTHORITY BEYOND THE PRESCR IBED PERIOD OF LIMITATION IS REQUIRED TO SHOW SUFFICIENT CAUSE WHICH WOULD INCLU DE SHOWING THAT THE PETITIONER/APPELLANT WAS EITHER BONA FIDE PURSUING HIS REMEDIES OR WAS PREVENTED BY SUFFICIENT CAUSE FROM PURSUING HIS REMEDIES. WHE THER SUFFICIENT CAUSE IS MADE OUT OR NOT IS ALWAYS A QUESTION OF FACT DEPENDING U PON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF EACH CASE AND HAS TO BE ESTABLISHE D ON RECORD. AN APPLICATION SEEKING CONDONATION OF DELAY HAS ALSO TO ESTABLISH THAT THERE WAS NO NEGLIGENCE OR INACTION OR WANT OF BONA FIDES AND THAT THE RIGH T GRANTED UNDER LAW TO CHALLENGE THE ORDER WAS NOT ABANDONED. IT CANNOT BE OVERLOOKE D THAT ON EXPIRY OF THE PERIOD OF LIMITATION PRESCRIBED FOR SEEKING LEGAL R EMEDY, A CORRESPONDING RIGHT ACCRUES IN FAVOUR OF THE OTHER PARTY AND THE SAME S HOULD NOT BE LIGHTLY INTERFERED WITH. 2.6. HON'BLE MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT IN TH E CASE OF NIHALKARAN V. CWT [1989] 175 ITR 14 HAS HELD AS UND ER: 'THE BURDEN IS ON THE PARTY CLAIMING CONDONATION OF DELAY TO PLACE BEFORE THE COURT, IN CLEAR AND EXPLICIT TERMS, ALL FACTS ON WH ICH THE PARTY RELIES, SO THAT THE COURT CAN COME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT IT IS NOT A C ASE OF WANT OF DILIGENCE OR INACTION ON THE PART OF THE APPLICANT. IN THE INSTA NT CASE, THE APPLICANT HAS FAILED TO PLACE ON RECORD ALL THESE FACTS. INACTION OR WAN T OF DILIGENCE ON THE PART OF THE APPLICANT WOULD NOT ENTITLE THE APPLICANT TO THE BE NEFIT OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 5 OF THE LIMITATION ACT. IN OUR OPINION, THEREFORE, THE APPLICANT HAS FAILED TO MAKE OUT A CASE THAT THERE WAS SUFFICIENT CAUSE FOR DELA Y IN FILING THE APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 27(3) OF THE ACT. THE APPLICATION FOR CONDO NATION OF DELAY IS, ACCORDINGLY, REJECTED. AS THE APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 27(3) OF THE ACT IS BARRED BY LIMITATION, IT DESERVES TO BE REJECTED ON THIS GROUND ALONE.' 2.7. IN MADHU DADHA VS THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONE R, HONBLE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN THEIR DECISION DATED 23.6.2009 IN TC(A). NO. 421 OF 2009 WHILE REFERRING TO THE AFORESAID DECISION OF THE HONBLE APEX COURT IN P.K. RAMACHANDRAN V. STATE OF KERALA , OBSERVED THAT 14. AT THIS JUNCTURE, WE HAVE TO BE GUIDE D BY THE JUDGMENT REPORTED IN [1990] 1 LLN 457 IN THE CASE OF T.N.M. BANK LTD. V. APP. AUTY., SHOPS ACT. IN THAT PARTICULAR CASE, THE DIVISION BENCH OF THIS COURT HAS HELD THAT, '.................. WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE QUE STION OF LIMITATION IS NOT MERELY A TECHNICAL CONSIDERATION. RULES OF LIMITATION ARE BASED ON PRI NCIPLES OF SOUND POLICY AND PRINCIPLES OF EQUITY. IS A LITIGANT LIABLE TO HAVE A DAMOCLES' SWORD HANGING OVER HIS HEAD INDEFINITELY FOR A PERIOD TO BE DETERMINED AT THE WHIMS AND FANC IES OF THE OPPONENT?' IN THAT DECISION, THIS COURT HAS HELD THAT THE D ELAY OF 285 DAYS IN PREFERRING THE APPEAL COULD NOT BE CONDONED. IT WAS HELD THAT THE CONDONATION OF DELAY WAS NOT I.T.A. NOS1238 & 1239/DEL./2011 5 JUSTIFIED ON FACTS AND EVIDENCE OF THE CASE. AS RIG HTLY POINTED OUT THAT THE RULES OF LIMITATION ARE BASED ON PRINCIPLES OF SOUND PUBL IC POLICY AND PRINCIPLES OF EQUITY. THOUGH THERE IS NO PRESUMPTION THAT THE DEL AY IS OCCASIONED DELIBERATELY OR ON ACCOUNT OF CULPABLE NEGLIGENCE, IF THE ADMITT ED FACTS IN THAT CASE ARE TAKEN NOTE OF, THERE IS NO DOUBT THAT THE DELAY ON THE PA RT OF THE APPELLANT IS DELIBERATE AND THE APPELLANT IS CLEARLY GUILTY OF CULPABLE NEG LIGENCE. SUCH NEGLIGENT ATTITUDE OF THE APPELLANT WAS NOT TAKEN CARE TO PRESERVE THE RIGHT OF APPEAL AND HAVING BEEN SLEPT OVER FOR MORE THAN 558 DAYS AND NOT EXPL AINED THE DELAY WITHOUT ANY REASONABLE DOUBT, THE APPELLANT CANNOT AVAIL SYMPAT HY OR DISCRETION OF THIS COURT. 2.8 IN VIEW OF THE AFORESAID OBSERVATIONS, HONBLE HIGH COURT CONCLUDED THAT THE DISCRETION HAVING BEEN RIGHTLY REFUSED BY THE T RIBUNAL, THERE WAS NO SUFFICIENT REASON OR CAUSE TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL. IN THIS CASE, THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO EXPLAIN THE SUFFICIENT CAUSE OR REASON BY GIVING NECESSARY DETAILS AS TO HOW THE DELAY OF 558 DAYS FROM JANUAR Y 2007 TO THE DATE OF FILING THE APPEAL HAD OCCURRED. HONBLE HIGH COURT IN THIS C ASE QUOTED THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF THE ITAT . FROM THE FACTS IT SEEMS THAT THE ASSEESSEE WA S NEGLIGENT BY NOT TAKING THE NECESSARY STEP FOR FILING THE APPEAL WITHIN TH E TIME PRESCRIBED BY THE STATUTE AND THEREBY FROM THE CONDUCT OF THE ASSESSEE, IT SE EMS THAT THE ASSESSEE TAKES THE CONDONATION OF DELAY PROVISION AS GRANTED. IT I S WELL SETTLED LAW THAT THE COURT HELPS THE VIGILANT AND NOT INDOLENT. WE ARE THEREFO RE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSEESEE HAS NOT MADE OUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE FOR COND ONING THE DELAY IN THE PRESENT APPEAL. THE CAUSE SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE IS MUCH LESS THAN THE SUFFICIENT CAUSE AS TO WHY THE APPEAL WAS NOT FILED WITHIN THE LIMITATION PERIOD AND EVEN AFTER THE EXPIRY OF LIMITATION PERIOD. SIN CE THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT GIVEN ANY DETAILS AS TO WHAT STEP SHE TOOK FOR FILING THE APPEAL WITHIN THE LIMITATION PERIOD OR AS EARLY AS POSSIBLE THEREFORE, THE EXPLA NATION FOR DELAY OF 558 DAYS APPEARS TO BE TOO INSUFFICIENT, UNSATISFACTORY AND UNREASONABLE FOR CONDONING THE INORDINATE DELAY. FROM THE AFFIDAVIT IT REFLECTS TH AT AVERMENTS ARE QUITE VAGUE AS NO DATES HAVE BEEN SPECIFIED AS TO WHEN THE PAPERS WERE HANDED FOR DRAFTING AN APPEAL AND ON WHAT OCCASION THE ENQUIRIES WERE MADE FOR PREPARATION AND FILING OF APPEAL. MOREOVER, WHEN THE ASSESSEE NEVER WENT F OR SIGNING THE APPEAL, HOW IT COULD HAVE BEEN FILED AS PRESUMED BY THE ASSESSE E. EVEN THE CONDUCT OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL IS ALSO NOT APPRECIAB LE AS VARIOUS NOTICE WERE SENT TO THE ASSESSEE AND FIRST TIME THE ASSESSEE APPEARE D ON 3.3.2008 WHEN THE APPEAL WAS HEARD. WE THEREFORE DECLINE TO CONDONE T HE DELAY OF 558 DAYS IN FILING THE PRESENT APPEAL. ACCORDINGLY, THE PRAYER FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IS REJECTED.' I.T.A. NOS1238 & 1239/DEL./2011 6 3. IN THE INSTANT CASE ALSO THE ASSEESSEE SEEMS TO BE QUITE NEGLIGENT BY NOT TAKING THE NECESSARY STEPS FOR FILING THE APPEAL W ITHIN THE TIME PRESCRIBED BY THE STATUTE .THE CONDUCT OF THE ASSESSEE REVEALS THAT THE ASSESSEE TAKES THE CONDONATION OF DELAY PROVISION AS GRANTED. THE ASS ESSEE DID NOT CARE TO SUBMIT ANY REQUEST FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY , EVEN WHEN IT WAS BROUGHT SPECIFICALLY TO HIS NOTICE AT THE TIME OF FILING OF APPEAL ITSELF. IN GRANTING THE INDULGENCE AND CONDONING THE DELAY, IT MUST BE PROVED BEYOND THE S HADOW OF DOUBT THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS DILIGENT AND WAS NOT GUILTY OF NEGLIGE NCE WHATSOEVER. THE SUFFICIENT CAUSE WITHIN THE CONTEMPLATION OF THE LI MITATION PROVISION MUST BE A CAUSE WHICH IS BEYOND THE CONTROL OF THE PARTY INVO KING THE AID OF THE PROVISIONS. IN THE CASE OF RAMLAL V. REWA COALFIELDS LTD. (AIR 1962 SC 361), THE HON BLE APEX COURT HELD THAT THE CAUSE FOR THE DELAY IN FI LING THE APPEAL, WHICH BY DUE CARE AND ATTENTION, COULD HAVE BEEN AVOIDED, CANNOT BE A SUFFICIENT CAUSE WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE LIMITATION PROVISION. THE RULE O F LIMITATION ALSO CONTAINS A RULE OF JUSTICE, ESPECIALLY WHERE A PERSON CHOOSES NOT T O TAKE UP REQUISITE LEGAL REMEDIES FOR AN INORDINATE LENGTH OF TIME AND WITHO UT REASONABLE CAUSE, THE TRIBUNAL SHOULD APPLY THE RULE OF LIMITATION. SEEKE RS OF JUSTICE MUST COME WITH CLEAN HANDS. IN THE INSTANT CASE, WE DO NOT FIND AN Y REASONABLE CAUSE FOR CONDONING THE DELAY. 4. IN THE LIGHT OF AFORESAID DECISIONS, THE BURDEN IS ON THE PARTY CLAIMING CONDONATION OF DELAY TO PLACE BEFORE THE COURT, IN CLEAR AND EXPLICIT TERMS, ALL FACTS ON WHICH THE PARTY RELIES, SO THAT THE COURT CAN COME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT IT IS NOT A CASE OF WANT OF DILIGENCE OR INACTION O N THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE. INACTION OR WANT OF DILIGENCE ON THE PART OF THE AS SESSEE WOULD NOT ENTITLE HIM TO THE BENEFIT OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 253(5) OF THE ACT. IN THE CASE UNDER CONSIDERATION, ADMITTEDLY, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT SH OWN ANY ACTION OR VIGILANCE FOR A PERIOD OF MORE THAN 902 DAYS AFTER THE IMPUG NED ORDER WAS SERVED UPON . IN THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PROVED ANY INACTION OR NEGLIGENCE ON THE PART OF A THIRD PARTY, MUCH LESS HAVE THEY PLEADED ANY ACTION OR VIGILANCE ON THEIR OWN PART. I.T.A. NOS1238 & 1239/DEL./2011 7 5. IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, ESPECIAL LY WHEN THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT COME WITH CLEAN HANDS BEFORE US AND HAS ALSO FAILED TO ESTABLISH WITH COGENT AND PROPER EVIDENCE THAT THERE EXISTED SUFFICIENT CAUSE FOR NOT PRESENTING THE APPEAL WITHIN THE STIPULATED PERIOD, DELAY OF 902 DAYS IN FILING APPEAL, CAN NOT BE CONDONED.. AS THE APPEAL IS BARRED BY LIMITATION, I T DESERVES TO BE REJECTED ON THIS GROUND ALONE. THEREFORE , WE DECLINE TO ADMIT THE QUANTUM APPEAL IN ITA NO.1238/DEL./2011. 6. AS ALREADY STATED ,NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF TH E ASSESSEE WHEN THESE APPEALS WERE CALLED FOR HEARING NOR ANY REQUEST FOR ADJOURNMENT WAS FILED . EARLIER ALSO THESE APPEALS WERE DISMISSED FOR NON- PROSECUTION. THE LD. AR ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE WAS SPECIFICALLY INFORMED ON 22.11.2012 ITSELF THAT THE HEARING OF THE APPEALS IS FIXED FOR TODAY. IT, TH EREFORE, APPEARS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED IN PURSUING THESE APPEALS. IN TH ESE CIRCUMSTANCES, FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE DELHI BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF MULTIPLAN (INDIA) PVT. LTD. VS CIT [38 ITD 320] (DEL) AND THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF ESTATE OF LATE TUKOJIRAO HOLKAR VS CWT [(1996) 223 ITR 480 (MP)], THE PENALTY APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSE SSEE IS ALSO DISMISSED IN LIMINE 7. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THESE APPEALS ARE DISMIS SED IN LIMINE. SD/- S D/- (C.M.GARG) (A.N. PAHUJA) (JUDICIAL MEMBER) (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO :- 1. ASSESSEE. 2. ACIT, PANIPAT CIRCLE, PANIPAT 3. CIT CONCERNED. 4. CIT(A), KARNAL 5. DR, ITAT,G BENCH, NEW DELHI 6. GUARD FILE. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT I.T.A. NOS1238 & 1239/DEL./2011 8 BY ORDER, DEPUTY / ASSTT.REGISTRAR ITAT, DELHI