Airline Allied Services Ltd., V. DCIT, Circle-1(1),

ITA 15/DEL/2005

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6431 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 11 year(s) 2 month(s) 14 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-03-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 1997-1998
• Appeal Filed On: 03-01-2005
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: P DAM KANUNJNA
• Keywords: Reasonable cause

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: E NEW DELHI BEFORE SMT DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH.O.P.KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A .NO.-15/DEL/ 2005 (ASSESSMENT YEAR-1997-98) M/S AIRLINES ALIED SERVICES LTD., ROOM NO.205, 2 ND FLOOR, G+5 BUILDING, TERMINAL-1, IGI AIRPORT, NEW DELHI-110037. (APPELLANT) VS DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), NEW DELHI (RESPONDENT) A SSESSEE BY NONE REVENUE BY SH. P.DAM. KANUNJNA, SR. DR ORDER PER DIVA SINGH, JM THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE A SSAILING THE CORRECTNESS OF THE ORDER DATED 23.11.2004 OF CIT(A) , NEW DELHI PERTAINING TO 1997-98 ASSESSMENT YEAR. 2. NO ONE WAS PRESENT AT THE TIME OF HEARING, THE APPE AL WAS PASSED OVER. IN THE SECOND ROUND ALSO, THE POSITION REMAINED THE SA ME. THE RECORD SHOWS THAT NOTICE HAS BEEN SENT TO THE ASSESSEE AT THE ADDRESS PROVIDED BY THE ASSESSEE ON 02.11.2015 IN COLUMN NO.10 IN THE MEMO OF APPEAL FI LED. DESPITE THIS FACT NEITHER THE ASSESSEE WAS PRESENT NOR ANY REQUEST FO R ADJOURNMENT HAS BEEN PLACED BEFORE US. THE RECORD FURTHER SHOWS THAT EA RLIER ALSO PURSUANT TO THE DISMISSAL OF ASSESSEES APPEAL, ON 21/01/2008 THE A SSESSEE HAD FILED AN MA PRAYING FOR A RECALL OF THE ORDER. THE ADDRESS PROV IDED TO THE REGISTRY IN THE MA NO.- 262/DEL/2013 IN ITA NO.-15/DEL/2005 IT IS FOUN D REMAINS THE SAME WHEREIN THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH ALLOWING THE MA FILED BY THE ASSESSEE RECALLED THE ORDER ON 20.10.2015. PURSUANT TO THIS, THE NOTI CE HAS BEEN SENT BY THE REGISTRY TO WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT RESPONDED. I N THE AFORE-MENTIONED DATE OF HEARING 07.03.2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 18.03.2016 I. T.A .NO.-15/DEL/2005 PAGE 2 OF 2 PECULIAR FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY REPRESENTATION OR PETITION SEEKING TIME, IT CAN BE SAFELY PRESUMED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT SERIOUS IN PURSUING THE APPEAL. AC CORDINGLY THE ONLY ALTERNATIVE LEFT IS TO DISMISS THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IN LI MINE. SUPPORT IS DRAWN FROM THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNALS IN COMMISSIONER OF INCOM E-TAX VS. MULTI PLAN INDIA (P) LTD.; 38 ITD 320 (DEL) AND ESTATE OF LATE TUKOJ IRAO HOLKAR VS. CWT: 223 ITR 480 (M.P). 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 18 TH OF MARCH, 2016. SD/- SD/- (O.P.KANT) (DIVA SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: /03/2016 *AMIT KUMAR* COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTA NT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI