M/s. Eni India Ltd., New Delhi V. Addl. DIT, Dehradun

ITA 1839/DEL/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7036 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 6 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 04-10-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 29-09-2016
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 28-03-2014
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: APPLICATION REJECTED
• Keywords: Reasonable cause

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: B NEW DELHI BEFORE SMT DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH.PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A .NO.-1839/DEL/2014 (ASSESSMENT YEAR-2009-10) ENI INDIA LTD., 14 TH FLOOR, EROS CORPORATE TOWER, NEHRU PLACE, NEW DELHI-110019. PAN-AABCE5205F ( APPELLANT) VS ADDL. CIT, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, 13-A, SUBHASH ROAD, DEHRADUN-248001. (RESPONDENT ) ASSESSEE BY APPLICATION REJECTED. REVENUE BY NONE ORDER PER DIVA SINGH, JM THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE A SSAILING THE CORRECTNESS OF THE ORDER DATED 27.01.2014 U/S 143( 3)/144C(13) OF THE AO PASSED IN PURSUANCE TO THE DIRECTION OF DRP DATED 1 8.12.2013. 2. HOWEVER, AT THE TIME OF HEARING, AN ADJOURNMENT PETITION WAS MOVED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. THE LD.AR WAS REQUIRED TO ADDRESS WHY THE NOTICE SENT TO THE ASSESSEE ON 18.07.2016 AT THE ADDRESS INDICA TED IN COLUMN NO.10 HAS COME BACK WITH THE COMMENT LEFT. THE APPEAL WAS P ASSED OVER TWICE. IN THE THIRD ROUND ALSO, THE LD.AR WAS UNABLE TO STATE WHE THER THE ADDRESS OF THE ASSESSEE CONTINUED TO REMAIN THE SAME SINCE AS PER RECORD, IT HAS NOT BEEN UPDATED. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, ADDRESSING THE ADJ OURNMENT PETITION, THE LD.AR WAS REQUIRED TO SHOW WHETHER HE HAD ANY POWER OF ATTORNEY SINCE NO POWER OF ATTORNEY WAS FILED ON RECORD. IN ORDER TO ASCERTAIN THE POSITION THE BENCH CLERK WAS HANDED OVER THE FILE IN THE COURT T O ASCERTAIN WHETHER THERE WAS ANY POWER OF ATTORNEY. ON GOING THROUGH THE RE CORD, IT WAS STATED THAT THERE WAS NO POWER OF ATTORNEY ON RECORD. THE LD. AR STATED THAT HE WOULD BE FILING POWER OF ATTORNEY. DATE OF HEARING 29.09.2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 04.10.2016 I.T .A .NO.-1839/DEL/2014 PAGE 2 OF 2 3. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE PRAYER SEEKING TIME WAS REJECTED AS NOT ONLY THE NOTICE SENT BY THE REGISTRY RETURNED UNSERVED E VEN OTHERWISE THE REQUEST FOR TIME WAS MADE ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE WITHOUT A POWER OF ATTORNEY. THE DEFECT TO THIS EFFECT HAS SPECIFICALLY BEEN POINTED OUT BY THE REGISTRY ON 17.10.2014. IN THE AFORE-MENTIONED PECULIAR FACTS A ND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, IT CAN BE SAFELY PRESUMED THAT THE ASSESSEE I S NOT SERIOUS IN PURSUING THE APPEAL FILED. ACCORDINGLY, THE ONLY ALTERNATIVE LE FT IS TO DISMISS THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IN LIMINE. SUPPORT IS DRAWN FROM THE ORDE R OF THE TRIBUNAL IN COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX VS. MULTI PLAN INDIA (P) LTD.; 38 ITD 320 (DEL) AND ESTATE OF LATE TUKOJIRAO HOLKAR VS. CWT: 223 ITR 48 0 (M.P). 4. 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. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DIS MISSED. THE ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 04 TH OF OCTOBER, 2016. SD/- SD/- (PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA) (DIVA SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER *AMIT KUMAR* COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTA NT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI