The rohtak Central Co-Operative Bank Ltd, Rohtak V. DCIT, Rohtak

ITA 124/DEL/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 118 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8850 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 11 month(s) 10 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-12-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 08-01-2016
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: 'E' NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI G.D. AGRAWAL, VICE PRESIDENT & SHRI K.NARASIMHA CHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER REVENUE BY MS. RINKU SINGH, SR. DR ORDER PER BENCH CHALLENGING THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS), ASSESSEES PREFERRED THESE APPEALS. 2. WHEN THE MATTER IS CALLED TODAY FOR HEARING, THERE IS NO REPRESENTATION ON BEHALF OFTHE ASSESSEES. THE NOTICE SENT TO THE ASSESSEE BY REGISTERED POSTTOTHE ADDRESS FURNISHED IN FORM NO.36. WHEN THE NOTICE IS SENT TO PROPER ADDRESS OF THE ASSESSEE AS PROVIDED BY ITA NO.L22/DEL/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011-12 ANGLICAN INDIA CONSULTANCY PVT. LTD., VS ACIT, RANGE - 2, NEW DELHI. A13, GREEN PARK EXTN., NEW DELHI PAN NO. AAHCA5457D ITA NO.L24/DEL/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13 THE ROHTAK CENTRAL CO.OPERATIVE BANK LTD., C/O: S.K.BANSAL, CA, 101, KOCHAR MARKET, 1 ST FLOOR, JHAJJAR ROAD, ROHTAK. VS DCIT, ROHTAK CIRCLE, ROHTAK. PAN NO. AAAAT8736B ASSESSEE BY NONE DATE OF HEARING 19.12.2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 19.12.2018 THEM IN FORM NO.36 THROUGH REGISTERED MAIL WITH POSTAGE PREPAID, IF THE ASSESSEE WAS TO BE FOUND THEREIN, THE NOTICE WOULD HAVE BEEN SERVED. IF FOR ANY REASON THE ASSESSEE IS ABSENT TEMPORARILY, IT IS FOR THE ASSESSEE TO MAKE ARRANGE WITH THE POSTAL DEPARTMENT EITHERTO DELIVER ITTO SOME OTHER PERSON, OR TO RE-DIRECT IT TO AN ADDRESS WHERE THE ASSESSEE COULD BE FOUND OR TO DETAIN THE MAIL TILL THE ASSESSEE COMES BACK AND CLAIMS THE SAME. EVEN IF THE ASSESSEE SHIFTS FROM THAT PLACE, IT IS FORTHE ASSESSEE TO NOTIFY THE NEW ADDRESS EITHER TO THE REVENUE OR TO THE TRIBUNAL OR TO THE POSTAL DEPARTMENT. OBVIOUSLY THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT TAKEN ANY OF THESE STEPS AND THE NON-SERVICE OF NOTICE IN THIS MATTER IS SOLELY ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE CONDUCT OFTHE ASSESSEE. SINCE THERE HAS BEEN NO REPRESENTATION FOR THE ASSESSEES EITHER IN PERSON OR THROUGH HIS AR, IT MEANS THAT ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED IN PROSECUTING THE APPEAL. WE ARE LEFT WITH NO OPTION BUT TO HOLD THAT THE APPEAL OFTHE ASSESSEE IS LIABLE TO BE DISMISSED FOR NON PROSECUTION. 3. WE FIND SUPPORT FROM THE DECISION IN COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX VS MULTIPLAN INDIA (P) LTD.: 38 ITD 320(DEL) WHEREIN THERE WAS NO REPRESENTATION FOR THE APPELLANT IN THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL, ON THE DATE OF HEARING, NOR ANY COMMUNICATION FOR ADJOURNMENT WAS RECEIVED AS TO WHY THE APPELLANT HAD CHOSEN TO REMAIN ABSENT ON THAT DATE. THE TRIBUNAL ON THE BASIS OF INHERENT POWERS, TREATED THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE AS UNADMITTED IN VIEW OF THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 19 OF THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RULES, 1963. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE SAID DECISION, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED FOR NON- PROSECUTION. 4. THE ASSESSEE, IF SO DESIRE, SHALL BE FREE TO MOVE THIS TRIBUNAL PRAYING FOR RECALLING THIS ORDER AND EXPLAINING REASONS THEN THIS ORDER MAY BE RECALLED. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED FOR NON-PROSECUTION. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 19 TH DECEMBER, 2018. SD/- SD/- (G.D.AGRAWAL) (K.NARASIMHA CHARY) PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 19 TH DECEMBER, 2018 COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI DRAFT DICTATED ON DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR DRAFT PROPOSED & PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED BY SECOND MEMBER. APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.PS/PS KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT ON DATE OF UPLOADING ORDER ON THE WEBSITE FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE AR DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK. DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER.