M/s. Rambhu Kumar Raj, New Delhi V. JCIT, New Delhi

ITA 2505/DEL/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6924 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-09-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC 2
• Next Hearing Date: 22-09-2016
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 05-05-2016
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: UMESH CHANDER DUBEY

Judgement Text

PAGE 1 OF 2 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH SMC-2: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 2505/DEL/2016 A.Y. : 2010-11 M/S RAMBHU KUMAR RAJ VS. JCIT, RANGE-26, 9995/16, GROUND FLOOR, NEW DELHI SARAI ROHILLA, ROHTAK ROAD, KAROL BAGH, NEW DELHI 110 005 (PAN: ADZPR5266R) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : NONE DEPARTMENT BY : SH. UMESH CHANDER DUBEY, SR. DR DATE OF HEARING : 22-09-2016 DATE OF ORDER : 22-09-2016 O R D E R PER H.S. SIDHU, JM THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED A GAINST THE ORDER DATED 01.2.2016 OF THE LD. CIT(A)-14, NEW DELHI RELEVANT TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11. 2. IN THIS CASE THE NOTICE WAS SENT TO THE ASSESSE E FOR HEARING BY REGD. AD POST FOR TODAY I.E. 22.09.2016 AT THE ADDRE SS MENTIONED IN FORM NO. 36 VIDE COLUMN NO. 10, BUT THE SAME WAS RET URNED BACK WITH THE REMARKS THAT NO FOUND. 3. ON 22.09.2016, NEITHER THE ASSESSEE NOR ITS AUTHORI SED REPRESENTATIVE ATTENDED THE HEARING AND ALSO NOT FILED ANY APPLICATION FOR ADJOURNMENT AND ALSO NO FRESH ADDRESS HAS BEEN GI VEN BY THE PAGE 2 OF 2 ASSESSEE AND HENCE, I AM OF THE VIEW THAT NO USEFU L PURPOSE WOULD BE SERVED TO SERVE THE NOTICE AGAIN AND AGAIN TO THE ASSESSEE ON THE SAME ADDRESS. IN VIEW OF ABOVE, IT IS THUS INFERRED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED IN PROSECUTION OF ITS APPEAL. 4. HAVING REGARD TO RULE 19(2) OF ITAT RULES AND FOLL OWING VARIOUS DECISIONS OF DELHI BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL INCLUDING T HAT OF MULTIPLAN INDIA LTD. : 38 ITD 320 (DELHI) AND HONBLE MADHYA PRAD ESH HIGH COURTS DECISION IN ESTATE OF LATE TUKOJIRAO HOLKAR VS. CWT; 223 ITR 480 (MP), I TREAT THIS APPEAL AS UNADMITTED AND DISM ISS THE SAME. I WOULD LIKE TO CLARIFY THAT SUBSEQUENTLY IF THE ASSE SSEE EXPLAINS THE REASONS FOR NON APPEARANCE AND IF THE BENCH IS SO SAT ISFIED, THE MATTER MAY BE RECALLED FOR THE PURPOSE OF ADJUDICATION OF THE APPEAL. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DIS MISSED IN LIMINE. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 22-09-2016. SD/- [H.S. SIDHU] JUDICIAL MEMBER DATE: 22/9/2016 SRBHATNAGAR COPY FORWARDED TO: - 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4.CIT (A) 5. DR , ITAT TRUE COPY BY ORDER, ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, DELHI BENCHES