M/s. GMS Services Pvt. Ltd., Delhi V. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 2652/DEL/2015

• Counselvise Citation: 265220114 RSA 2015
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 30 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 04-11-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC 2
• Next Hearing Date: 04-11-2015
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 05-05-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: GARIMA JAIN

Judgement Text

ITA NO.2652/DEL/2015 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH SMC-2, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. NO . 2652 /DEL/20 1 5 A.Y. : 20 04 - 05 GMS SERVICES PVT. LTD., C-28, ACHARYA NIKETAN, MAYUR VIHAR, PHASE-1, DELHI 110 091 (PAN:AAACG4721B) VS . INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 10(4), C.R. BLDG., I.P. ESTATE, NEW DELHI (APPELLANT) (APPELLANT) (APPELLANT) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) (RESPONDENT) (RESPONDENT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : NONE DEPARTMENT BY : MS. GARIMA JAIN, S R . DR. DATE OF HEARING: DATE OF HEARING: DATE OF HEARING: DATE OF HEARING: 0 00 04 44 4. .. .1 11 11 11 1.201 .201 .201 .2015 55 5 DATE OF ORDER : DATE OF ORDER : DATE OF ORDER : DATE OF ORDER : 0 00 04 44 4. .. .1 11 11 11 1.201 .201 .201 .2015 55 5 ORDER ORDER ORDER ORDER TH THTH THIS IS IS IS APPEAL APPEAL APPEAL APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE BY THE ASSESSEE BY THE ASSESSEE BY THE ASSESSEE IS IS IS IS DIRECTED AGAINST DIRECTED AGAINST DIRECTED AGAINST DIRECTED AGAINST THE THE THE THE O OO ORDER DATED RDER DATED RDER DATED RDER DATED 18 1818 18. .. .2 22 2. .. .20 2020 201 11 15 55 5 PASSED BY THE LD. PASSED BY THE LD. PASSED BY THE LD. PASSED BY THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) (APPEALS) (APPEALS) (APPEALS)- -- -4 44 4, NEW DELHI , NEW DELHI , NEW DELHI , NEW DELHI FOR THE ASSTT. YEAR FOR THE ASSTT. YEAR FOR THE ASSTT. YEAR FOR THE ASSTT. YEAR 20 2020 200 00 04 44 4- -- -05 0505 05. . . . 2. 2.2. 2. THE PRESENT CASE WAS EARLIER FIXED FOR THE PRESENT CASE WAS EARLIER FIXED FOR THE PRESENT CASE WAS EARLIER FIXED FOR THE PRESENT CASE WAS EARLIER FIXED FOR 31 3131 31. .. .7 77 7.2015 .2015 .2015 .2015 AND THEN AND THEN AND THEN AND THEN ADJOURNED TO 19.8.2015. ON 19.8.2015 DUE TO NON ADJOURNED TO 19.8.2015. ON 19.8.2015 DUE TO NON ADJOURNED TO 19.8.2015. ON 19.8.2015 DUE TO NON ADJOURNED TO 19.8.2015. ON 19.8.2015 DUE TO NON- -- -FUNCTIONING OF THE FUNCTIONING OF THE FUNCTIONING OF THE FUNCTIONING OF THE BENCH, THE CASE WAS ADJOURNED FOR 4.11.2015. ON 4.1 1.2015, BENCH, THE CASE WAS ADJOURNED FOR 4.11.2015. ON 4.1 1.2015, BENCH, THE CASE WAS ADJOURNED FOR 4.11.2015. ON 4.1 1.2015, BENCH, THE CASE WAS ADJOURNED FOR 4.11.2015. ON 4.1 1.2015, NEITHER THE NEITHER THE NEITHER THE NEITHER THE ASSESSEE NOR H ASSESSEE NOR H ASSESSEE NOR H ASSESSEE NOR HIS IS IS IS AUTHORISED REPRESENTAT AUTHORISED REPRESENTAT AUTHORISED REPRESENTAT AUTHORISED REPRESENTATI II IVE APPEARED BEFORE THE BENCH VE APPEARED BEFORE THE BENCH VE APPEARED BEFORE THE BENCH VE APPEARED BEFORE THE BENCH AND AND AND AND ALSO NO ADJOURNMENT APPLICATION WAS FILED ALSO NO ADJOURNMENT APPLICATION WAS FILED ALSO NO ADJOURNMENT APPLICATION WAS FILED ALSO NO ADJOURNMENT APPLICATION WAS FILED. . . . I I I I HAVE PERUSED THE HAVE PERUSED THE HAVE PERUSED THE HAVE PERUSED THE RECORDS AND FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT GIVEN A NY FRESH ADDRESS FOR RECORDS AND FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT GIVEN A NY FRESH ADDRESS FOR RECORDS AND FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT GIVEN A NY FRESH ADDRESS FOR RECORDS AND FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT GIVEN A NY FRESH ADDRESS FOR CORRESPONDENCE. IN MY CONSIDERED OPINION, NO USEFU L PURPOSE WOULD BE CORRESPONDENCE. IN MY CONSIDERED OPINION, NO USEFU L PURPOSE WOULD BE CORRESPONDENCE. IN MY CONSIDERED OPINION, NO USEFU L PURPOSE WOULD BE CORRESPONDENCE. IN MY CONSIDERED OPINION, NO USEFU L PURPOSE WOULD BE SERVED TO ISSUE NOT SERVED TO ISSUE NOT SERVED TO ISSUE NOT SERVED TO ISSUE NOTICE AGAIN AND AGAIN ON THE SAME ADDRESS. ICE AGAIN AND AGAIN ON THE SAME ADDRESS. ICE AGAIN AND AGAIN ON THE SAME ADDRESS. ICE AGAIN AND AGAIN ON THE SAME ADDRESS. IT IS THUS IT IS THUS IT IS THUS IT IS THUS INFERRED THAT INFERRED THAT INFERRED THAT INFERRED THAT THE THE THE THE ASSESSEE ASSESSEE ASSESSEE ASSESSEE IS IS IS IS NOT INTERESTED IN NOT INTERESTED IN NOT INTERESTED IN NOT INTERESTED IN P PP PROSECUTION OF ROSECUTION OF ROSECUTION OF ROSECUTION OF ITS ITS ITS ITS APPEAL. APPEAL. APPEAL. APPEAL. 3 33 3. .. . HAVING REGARD TO RULE 19(2) OF ITAT RULES AND FOLL OWING VARIOUS HAVING REGARD TO RULE 19(2) OF ITAT RULES AND FOLLO WING VARIOUS HAVING REGARD TO RULE 19(2) OF ITAT RULES AND FOLLO WING VARIOUS HAVING REGARD TO RULE 19(2) OF ITAT RULES AND FOLLO WING VARIOUS DECISIONS OF DELHI BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL INCLUDING THAT O DECISIONS OF DELHI BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL INCLUDING THAT O DECISIONS OF DELHI BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL INCLUDING THAT O DECISIONS OF DELHI BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL INCLUDING THAT OF MULTIPLAN INDIA F MULTIPLAN INDIA F MULTIPLAN INDIA F MULTIPLAN INDIA LTD. : 38 ITD 320 (DELHI) AND HONBLE MADHYA PRADES H HIGH COURTS LTD. : 38 ITD 320 (DELHI) AND HONBLE MADHYA PRADES H HIGH COURTS LTD. : 38 ITD 320 (DELHI) AND HONBLE MADHYA PRADES H HIGH COURTS LTD. : 38 ITD 320 (DELHI) AND HONBLE MADHYA PRADES H HIGH COURTS DECISION IN ESTATE OF LATE TUKOJIRAO HOLKAR VS. CWT ; 223 ITR 480 (MP), DECISION IN ESTATE OF LATE TUKOJIRAO HOLKAR VS. CWT ; 223 ITR 480 (MP), DECISION IN ESTATE OF LATE TUKOJIRAO HOLKAR VS. CWT ; 223 ITR 480 (MP), DECISION IN ESTATE OF LATE TUKOJIRAO HOLKAR VS. CWT ; 223 ITR 480 (MP), I I I I TREAT TH TREAT TH TREAT TH TREAT THIS IS IS IS APPEAL AS UNADMITTED AND DISMISS THE SAME. APPEAL AS UNADMITTED AND DISMISS THE SAME. APPEAL AS UNADMITTED AND DISMISS THE SAME. APPEAL AS UNADMITTED AND DISMISS THE SAME. I WOULD LIKE TO I WOULD LIKE TO I WOULD LIKE TO I WOULD LIKE TO CLARIFY THAT SUBSEQUENTLY IF THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINS THE REASONS FOR NON CLARIFY THAT SUBSEQUENTLY IF THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINS THE REASONS FOR NON CLARIFY THAT SUBSEQUENTLY IF THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINS THE REASONS FOR NON CLARIFY THAT SUBSEQUENTLY IF THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINS THE REASONS FOR NON ITA NO.2652/DEL/2015 2 APPEARANCE AND IF THE BENCH IS SO SATISFIED, THE MA TTER MAY BE RECALLED APPEARANCE AND IF THE BENCH IS SO SATISFIED, THE MA TTER MAY BE RECALLED APPEARANCE AND IF THE BENCH IS SO SATISFIED, THE MA TTER MAY BE RECALLED APPEARANCE AND IF THE BENCH IS SO SATISFIED, THE MA TTER MAY BE RECALLED FOR THE PURPOSE OF ADJUDICATION OF THE APPEAL. FOR THE PURPOSE OF ADJUDICATION OF THE APPEAL. FOR THE PURPOSE OF ADJUDICATION OF THE APPEAL. FOR THE PURPOSE OF ADJUDICATION OF THE APPEAL. 4 44 4. .. . AS A RESULT, AS A RESULT, AS A RESULT, AS A RESULT, THE A THE A THE A THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE PPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE PPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE PPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS IS IS IS DISMISSED IN LIMIN DISMISSED IN LIMIN DISMISSED IN LIMIN DISMISSED IN LIMINE. E. E. E. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 0 00 04 44 4. .. .1 11 11 11 1.2015 .2015 .2015 .2015. . . . S SS SD DD D/ // /- -- - [ [[ [H.S. SIDHU H.S. SIDHU H.S. SIDHU H.S. SIDHU] ]] ] JUDICIAL JUDICIAL JUDICIAL JUDICIAL MEMBER MEMBER MEMBER MEMBER SR BHATNAGAR SR BHATNAGAR SR BHATNAGAR SR BHATNAGAR DATE: 04.11.2015 COPY COPY COPY COPY FORWARDED TO: FORWARDED TO: FORWARDED TO: FORWARDED TO: - -- - 1. APPELLANT - 2. RESPONDENT - 3. CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT TRUE COPY BY ORDER, ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, DELHI BENCHES