M/s. Upvan Properties (P) Ltd., New Delhi V. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

ITA 1629/DEL/2014

• Counselvise Citation: 162920114 RSA 2014
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 4 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 04-08-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC 1
• Next Hearing Date: 03-08-2015
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 19-03-2014
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: DR ANJULA JAIN

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: SMC - I NEW DELHI BEFORE SMT DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A .NO. - 1629 /DEL/201 4 (ASSESSMENT YEAR - 20 09 - 10 ) UPVAN PROPERTIES (P.) LTD., 12 - RING ROAD, LAJPAT NAGAR - IV, NEW DELHI. PAN - AAACU5151H (APPELLANT) VS A DDL. CIT, RANGE - 3, NEW DELHI (RESPONDENT ) APPELLANT BY NONE RESPONDENT BY DR.ANJULA JAIN, SR.DR ORDER THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ASSAILING THE CORRECTNESS OF THE ORDER DATED 19.12.2013 OF CIT(A) - XXXI, NEW DELHI PERTAINING TO 20 09 - 10 ASSESSMENT YEAR. 2. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, NO ONE WAS PRESENT. ACCORDINGLY IT WAS PASSED OVER. DESPITE THIS FACT THE ASSESSEE REMAINED UNREPRESENTED. THE RECORD SHOWS THAT THE APPEAL WAS INITIALLY ARGUED ALONGWITH GROUP OF APPEALS ON 03.08.2015 . HOWEVER IMMEDIATELY THEREA FTER THE LD. AR HIMSELF ON THE SAID DATE POINTED OUT THAT THERE IS A DELAY OF 18 DAYS. FOR WHICH PURPOSE, SOME PETITION WAS SOUGHT TO BE REFERRED TO. CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT THE SAID PETITION WHICH THE LD.AR WANTED TO FILE IN THE COURT WA S SIGNED BY SO ME UNIDENTIFIED, UN - NAMED PERSON, TIME WAS GIVEN TO THE LD.AR. THE LD.AR STATED THAT THE SIGNATURE IS OF ONE OF THE 2 DIRECTORS OF THE FIRM . IT WAS SEEN THAT THE APPEAL MEMO HAD BEEN SIGNED BY SH.VASUDEV G ARG, DIRECTOR WHOSE SIGNATURE IS ENTIRELY DIFFE RENT FROM THE PERSON WHO HAD SIGNED THE PETITION MOVED AND THERE WAS NOTHING ON RECORD TO SHOW THAT HE WAS A DIRECTOR. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, IT WAS SUGGESTED THAT THE APPEAL BE ADJOURNED FOR A FEW DAYS SO AS TO ENSURE COMPLIANCE. THE LD.AR DATE OF HEARING 04 .0 8 .2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 04 .0 8 .2015 I.T.A .NO. - 1629/ DEL/201 4 PAGE 2 OF 2 STATED THAT H E WOULD FILE THE AMENDED PETITION IN THE COURSE OF THE DAY ITSELF AND THE HEARING MAY BE CONCLUDED. HOWEVER, OVER - RULING THE SUGGESTIONS MADE ONE DAY S TIME WAS GIVEN AND BEFORE DOING SO IT WAS SPECIFICALLY ENQUIRED WHETHER LONGER TIME SHOULD BE GIVEN. T HE LD.AR STATED THAT HE WOULD FILE THE SAME ON 30.08.2015 ITSELF. THE RECORD SHOWS THAT NOTHING WAS FILED. IN FACT, NO ONE WAS PRESENT TO EXPLAIN THE DELAY , E VEN IN THE SECOND ROUND, THE POSITION REMAINED THE SAME. SINCE THE DEFECT REMAIN S UNADDRESSED O N RECORD. ACCORDINGLY THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED IN LIMINE AS THE DELAY OF 18 DAYS HAS NOT BEEN EXPLAINED. LIBERTY IS GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE TO PRAY FOR A RECALL OF THIS ORDER AS AND WHEN THE ASSESSEE ON CONSIDERATION CONSIDERS IT APPROPRIATE TO EXPLAIN THE DELAY OF 18 DAYS POINTED OUT BY THE REGISTRY. 3. AS A RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. THE ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 04 TH OF AUGUST , 2015. SD/ - (DIVA SINGH) JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 04/08 /2015 * AMIT KUMAR * COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI