M/s. Meghdoot Promoters Pvt. Ltd., Faizabad V. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 1418/DEL/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6799 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 7 month(s) 16 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-10-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC 1
• Next Hearing Date: 01-09-2016
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 11-03-2015
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: F R MEENA
• Keywords: Reasonable cause

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: SMC-1 NEW DELHI BEFORE SMT DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A .NO.-1418/DEL/2015 (ASSESSMENT YEAR-2006-07) MEGHDOOT PROMOTERS PVT.LTD., C/O-MR.ALOK KUMAR JAISWAL, 724, REKHBGANJ, FAIZABAD-224001. PAN-AACCM6868I ( APPELLANT) VS ITO, WARD-6(3), NEW DELHI. (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY NONE R EVENUE BY SH.F.R.MEENA, SR.DR ORDER THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE A SSAILING THE CORRECTNESS OF THE ORDER DATED 27.03.2014 OF THE CI T(A)-IX, NEW DELHI PERTAINING TO 2006-07 ON VARIOUS GROUNDS. 2. HOWEVER, NO ONE WAS PRESENT ON BEHALF OF THE ASS ESSEE AT THE TIME OF HEARING. THE APPEAL WAS PASSED OVER TWICE. EVEN I N THE THIRD ROUND, THE POSITION REMAINED THE SAME AS NEITHER THE ASSESSEE IS REPRESENTED NOR THERE IS ANY ADJOURNMENT ON RECORD. THE RECORD SHOWS THAT I N THE PRESENT APPEAL THE DEFECT POINTED OUT BY THE REGISTRY IN REGARD TO THE TRIBUNAL FEE HAS NOT BEEN CURED BY THE ASSESSEE. SIMILARLY IN REGARD TO THE DELAY OF 281 DAYS POINTED OUT BY THE REGISTRY ALSO NOT BEEN ADDRESSED BY ANY AFFI DAVIT. THE RECORD FURTHER SHOWS THAT THE NOTICE HAS BEEN SENT TO THE ASSESSEE ON 20.07.2016 AT THE ADDRESS INDICATED IN COLUMN NO.10, DESPITE THIS THE ASSESSEE REMAINED UNREPRESENTED. IT IS FURTHER SEEN THAT THE SAID NOT ICE HAS NOT COME BACK UNSERVED. ACCORDINGLY, IN THE PECULIAR FACTS AND C IRCUMSTANCES 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 DISMI SS THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IN LIMINE. SUPPORT IS DRAWN FROM THE ORDER OF THE TRI BUNALS IN COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX VS. MULTI PLAN INDIA (P) LTD.; 38 ITD 32 0 (DEL) AND ESTATE OF LATE TUKOJIRAO HOLKAR VS. CWT: 223 ITR 480 (M.P). DATE OF HEARING 01.09.2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 26.10.2016 I.T .A .NO.-1418/DEL/2015 PAGE 2 OF 2 3. BEFORE PARTING IT IS APPROPRIATE TO ADD THAT IN CAS E THE ASSESSEE IS ABLE TO SHOW THAT THERE WAS A REASONABLE CAUSE FOR NON-REPR ESENTATION ON THE DATE OF HEARING, IT WOULD BE AT LIBERTY IF SO ADVISED TO PR AY FOR A RECALL OF THIS ORDER. THE SAID ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED ON THE DATE OF HEARING IT SELF 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 2 6 TH OF OCTOBER, 2016. SD/- (DIVA SINGH) JUDI CIAL MEMBER *AMIT KUMAR* COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTA NT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI