M/S ROYAL ENCLAVE LIMITED, BATHINDA V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), BATHINDA

ITA 142/ASR/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 118 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9057 (ITAT-AMRITSAR)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-12-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 16-03-2018
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR. BEFORE SH. SANJAY ARORA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. N. K. CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 142/(ASR)/2018 ASSE SSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 ROYAL ENCLAVE LIMITED, # 2928-1, 1 ST FLOOR, BIBI WALA ROAD, BATHINDA [PAN: AACCR 8685D] VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), BATHINDA (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY: SH. CHARAN DASS (D.R.) DATE OF HEARING: 10.12.2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 12.12.201 8 ORDER PER SANJAY ARORA, AM: THIS IS AN APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE AGITATING THE ORD ER BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), BATHINDA (CITA) FOR SHOR T) DATED 24.01.2018, DISMISSING THE ASSESSEES APPEAL CONTESTING ITS AS SESSMENT UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (THE ACT HEREINAFTER) DA TED 20.12.2016 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR (A.Y.) 2009-10. 2. NONE APPEARED FOR AND ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE- APPELLANT WHEN THE APPEAL WAS CALLED OUT FOR HEARING. THE NOTICE OF HEARING, SENT PER REGISTERED POST, HAS COME BACK UNSERVED WITH THE POSTAL REMARKS INSUFFI CIENT ADDRESS ON 14.11.2018. THE ASSESSEES ADDRESS AS MENTIONED ON THE ENVELOPE IS THE SAME AS THAT APPEARING IN FORM 36, I.E., THE MEMO OF APPEAL FOR PRESENTING AN APPEAL BEFORE THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AND, FURTHER, IS CLEARLY LEGIBLE. THE ASSE SSEES ADDRESS AS MENTIONED ON THE ITA NO. 142/ASR/2018 (AY 2009-10) ROYAL ENCLAVE LTD. V. ITO 2 ORDERS BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES, AS ALSO THE ASSE SSEES COMMUNICATION TO THE REGISTRY OF THE TRIBUNAL FOR FILING THIS APPEAL, IS ALSO THE SAME. THERE IS, FURTHER, NO POWER OF ATTORNEY OR VAKALAT IN FAVOUR OF ANY COUNS EL ON RECORD. THE APPEAL IS ALSO DEFECTIVE IN-AS-MUCH AS THE VERIFICATION (OF F ORM 36) DOES NOT BEAR THE NAME OF THE SIGNATORY THEREOF, AND WHICH, COMMUNICATED P ER THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF THE APPEAL, REMAINS UNREMOVED TO DATE. UNDER THE CI RCUMSTANCES, WE ARE LEFT WITH NO OPTION BUT TO DISMISS THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IN LIMINE FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION AS WELL AS BEING DEFECTIVE. IT WAS INCUMBENT ON THE AS SESSEE TO HAVE FURNISHED THE CORRECT AND FULL ADDRESS. TOWARD THIS WE DRAW SUPPO RT FROM THE DECISION, AMONG OTHERS, IN CIT V. MULTIPLAN INDIA (P.) LTD . [1991] 38 ITD 320 (DEL). WE ARE CONSCIOUS THAT THE PRESENT ORDER BY THE TRIBUNAL MA Y ALSO FACE A SIMILAR PROBLEM OF COMMUNICATION. HOWEVER, AS AFORE-NOTED, IT IS ONLY THE ASSESSEE WHO IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THIS STATE OF AFFAIRS. THE ASSESSEE IS AT LIBER TY TO MOVE THE TRIBUNAL FOR THE RESTORATION OF ITS APPEAL, AFTER REMOVING THE DEFE CT, BY SATISFYING THE CONDITION/S OF RULE 24 OF THE INCOME TAX (APPELLATE TRIBUNAL) RULE S, 1963, AND WHICH ALSO EXPLAINS OUR NOT CONSIDERING THE APPEAL ON MERITS. WE DECIDE ACCORDINGLY. 3. IN THE RESULT, THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IS DISMISSE D IN LIMINE . ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON DECEMBER 12, 2018 SD/- SD/- (N. K. CHOUDHRY) (SANJAY ARORA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATE: 12.12.2018 /GP/SR PS. COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: (1) THE APPELLANT: ROYAL ENCLAVE LIMITED, # 292 8-1, 1 ST FLOOR, BIBI WALA ROAD, BATHINDA (2) THE RESPONDENT: INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1( 1), BATHINDA (3) THE CIT(APPEALS), BATHINDA (4) THE CIT CONCERNED TRUE COPY (5) THE SR. DR, I.T.A.T. BY ORDER