M/s. Save N Grow Finsec Pvt. Ltd., Faridabad V. ACIT, Faridabad

ITA 1381/DEL/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3227 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 8 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 14-11-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: H
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 11-03-2016
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Reasonable cause

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH D NEW DELHI BEFORE SH.G.D.AGRAWAL, HONBLE PRESIDENT AND SH.K.N.CHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 1381/DEL/2016 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009 -10) ORDER PER G.D.AGRAWAL, PRESIDENT CHALLENGING THE ORDER DATED 08.01.2016 IN APPEAL NO.108/2014-15 PASSING BY THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPE AL) [IN SHORT CIT(A)], FARIDABAD FOR THE AY 2009-10, THE ASSESSEE FILED TH IS APPEAL. 2. AT THE OUTSET WE OBSERVED THAT AT THE TIME OF HE ARING, NO ONE WAS PRESENT ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. IN THIS MATTER WHEN THE NOTICE WAS SENT TO THE ADDRESS GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE IN THIS APPEAL WITH P OSTAGE PREPAID, IT WAS RETURNED STATING THAT THE ASSESSEE LEFT THE ADDRESS WITHOUT INFORMATION. WHEN THE ASSESSEE HAD TO LEAVE THE RESIDENCE, IT IS FOR THE ASSESSEE TO MAKE ARRANGEMENT WITH THE POSTAL DEPARTMENT TO DELIVER T HE MAIL TO SOMEBODY ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE OR RE-DIRECT TO THE NEW ADDR ESS OR TO RETAIN THE MAIL TILL THEY CAME BACK AND CLAIM THE SAME. NON-SERVICE OF NOTICE IN THIS MATTER IS SOLELY ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE CONDUCT OF THE ASSESSEE. HENCE, WE ATTRIBUTE SERVICE TO THE ASSESSEE AND FOR THEIR ABSENCE, IT HAS TO BE INFERRED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS LOST INTEREST IN PROSECUTING THIS APPEAL, AND O N THAT GROUND THE APPEAL IS SAVE N. GROW FINSEC PVT.LTD., B-466, NEHRU GROUND, NI, FARIDABAD. PAN-AAHCS5198P VS ACIT, CIRCLE-II, FARIDABAD. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY NONE RESPONDENT BY SH. AMIT JAIN, SR.DR DATE OF HEARING 14 . 11 .2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 14 . 11 .2017 ITA NO. 1381/DEL/2016 2 LIABLE TO BE DISMISSED FOR NON PROSECUTION. SUPPORT IS DRAWN FROM THE ORDER OF THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF DELHI BENCH OF ITAT IN THE CASE OF MULTIPLAN INDIA (P) LTD.; 38 ITD 320 (DEL) AND ORDER OF HONBLE MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF ESTATE OF LATE TUKOJIRAO HOLKAR VS. CWT: 22 3 ITR 480 (M.P). 3. BEFORE PARTING, WE ADD THAT IN CASE THE ASSESSEE IS ABLE TO SHOW THAT THERE WAS A REASONABLE CAUSE FOR NON-REPRESENTATION ON THE DATE OF HEARING, IT WOULD BE AT LIBERTY IF SO DEEMED FIT TO PRAY FOR A RECALL OF THIS ORDER. THE SAID ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED ON THE DATE OF HEARING ITSELF IN THE OPEN COURT. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DIS MISSED. THE ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 14 TH OF NOVEMBER, 2017. SD/- SD/- (K.N.CHARY) (G.D.AGRAWAL) JUDICIAL MEMBER PRESIDENT DATE:-14 TH NOVEMBER, 2017 *AMIT KUMAR* COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI