Sh. Noren Mandal, New Delhi V. DCIT, New Delhi

ITA 2550/DEL/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6613 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 year(s) 6 month(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-11-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: E
• Next Hearing Date: 28-11-2016
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 28-05-2010
• Court: TRIBUNAL

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH E, NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI L. P. SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA A. PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 2550/DEL/2010 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07) NAREN MANDAL, VERSUS. DCIT, CIRCLE 39(1) PROP. OF M/S PEE PEE MANDAL CONSTRUCTION NEW DELHI D-2/16-17, SECTOR-II, ROHINI, NEW DELHI PAN :ACAPM4314 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY : SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, SR. DR DATE OF HEARING: 28.11.2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 30.11.2016 ORDER PER BEENA A. PILLAI, JM: THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE PRESENT APPEAL, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 15.03.2010 PASSED BY CIT(A)-XXVII, NEW DELHI FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 ON VARIOUS GROUNDS. 2. IN THE PRESENT APPEAL, NOTICE WAS SENT THROUGH R PAD TO THE ASSESSEE FOR HEARING ON 15.09.2016, WHICH WAS ADJOURNED TO 28.11.2016 ON THE REQUEST OF ASSESSEE S COUNSEL. NONE HAS APPEARED ON BEHALF OF ASSESSEE AN D THE HEARING WAS ADJOURNED TO 28.11.2016 FOR WHICH NOTIC ES WERE SENT TO BOTH THE PARTIES THROUGH RPAD BUT THE ASSES SEE HAS 2 I.T.A. NO. 2550/DEL/2010 NOT PREFERRED TO PUT IN HIS APPEARANCE HIMSELF OR T HROUGH HIS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE NOR SENT ANY REQUEST FOR ADJOURNMENT. SO, IT IS ASSESSEE ON RECORD THAT THE HE IS NOT INTERESTED IN PROSECUTION OF THE PRESENT APPEAL. 3. KEEPING IN VIEW THE LEGAL POSITION THAT MERE ISS UANCE OF NOTICE DOES NOT AMOUNT TO ADMISSION OF APPEAL AND T HIS ISSUE HAS BEEN SQUARELY DECIDED BY HONBLE ITAT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. MULTIPLAN (INDIA) PVT. LTD. 38 ITD 320 ( DEL.), THE PRESENT APPEAL IS HEREBY DISMISSED FOR WANT OF PROS ECUTION WITH LIBERTY TO THE ASSESSEE TO FILE AN APPLICATION TO RECALL THE ORDER SUBJECT TO DEMONSTRATE THAT HE WAS PREVENTED BY SUFFICIENT CAUSE FROM PUTTING HIS APPEARANCE AT THE TIME OF HEARING. 4. IN VIEW OF ABOVE, APPEAL FILED BY ASSESSEE IS D ISMISSED AS UNADMITTED. 5. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 30 TH NOVEMBER, 2016. SD./- SD./- (L.P. SAHU) (BEENA A. PILLAI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATE: 30.11.2016 @M!T