M/S DEEPKALA FASHIONS, Jaipur V. ACIT, Jaipur

ITA 24/JPR/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 62003 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-04-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 09-01-2012
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: D K MEENA

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE T RIBUNAL JAIPUR BENCHE S A, JAIPUR BEFORE S/SHRI R.K. GUPTA, JM AND SANJAY ARORA, AM I.T.A NO. 24/JP/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-07 DEEPKALA FASHIONS, 123, BAPU BAZAR, JAIPUR [PAN: AAEFD 4857C] VS THE ASSTT. CIT, CIRCLE- 1 JAIPUR (ASSESSEE-APPELLANT) (REVENUE -RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY NONE (NOTICE RETURNED) REVENUE BY SHRI D.K. MEENA, JR. DR DATE OF HEARING 17/04/2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 20/04/2012 O R D E R PER SANJAY ARORA, AM: THIS IS AN APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE, ARISING OUT OF THE ORDER BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-I, JAIPUR (CIT(A) FOR SHO RT) DATED 01-12-2011, CONFIRMING THE LEVY OF PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT , 1961 (THE ACT FOR SHORT) BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER (AO) VIDE HIS ORDER DATED 30-06-2 009 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR (A.Y.) 2006-07 2. AT THE VERY OUTSET, IT WAS OBSERVED BY THE BENC H THAT THE NOTICE OF HEARING SENT BY THE REGISTERED POST AT THE ADDRESS AS SPECIFIED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL (FORM NO.36) HAS BEEN RECEIVED BACK UNSERVED BY THE POSTAL AUTHORITIES WITH THE REMARKS TO THE EFFECT THAT NO SUCH PERSON BY THE SA ID NAME IS AVAILABLE AT THE STATED ADDRESS. THE ADDRESS MENTIONED IN THE ASSESSMENT OR DER AND THE APPELLATE ORDER IS ALSO THE 2 SAME. THERE BEING, THUS, NO ADDRESS AVAILABLE WITH THE TRIBUNAL AT WHICH THE NOTICE OF HEARING COULD BE SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE, THE PRESEN T APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE PROCEEDED WITH. IT IS UNFORTUNATE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BROUGHT HIS CURRENT ADDRESS TO THE NOTICE OF THE TRIBUNAL, TO BE ABLE TO COMMUNICA TE THEREWITH IN THE MATTER, AND WHICH IS OBLIGED TO DO SO ONLY AT THE ADDRESS AS COMMUNICATE D BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE PURPOSE. UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE, THEREFORE, DISMISS THE SAME IN LIMINE FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION, RELYING ON THE ORDER IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. MULTIPLAN INDIA (P) LTD . [1991] 38 ITD 320, AND ALSO ON THE JUDGEMENT BY THE HONBLE H IGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH IN THE CASE OF ESTATE OF LATE TUKHOJI RAO HOLKAR VS. CWT [1997] 223 ITR 480 (MP). WE DECIDE ACCORDINGLY. 3. IN THE RESULT, THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IS DISMISSE D. SD/- SD/- (R.K. GUPTA) (SANJAY ARORA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER PLACE: JAIPUR DATED: APRIL 20, 2012 *MISHRA COPY TO: 1. M/S. DEEPKALA FASHIONS, JAIPUR. 2. THE ACIT, CIRCLE- 1, JAIPUR 3THE CIT(A)-I, JAIPUR 4. THE CIT CONCERNED, JAIPUR 5. THE D.R., I.T.A.T. 6. GUARD FILE (ITA NO.24/JP/2012) BY ORDER (ASSISTANT REGIST RAR) ITAT, JAIPUR BENCHES 3