M/s Rajdhani Distributors, New Delhi V. Jt.CIT, New Delhi

ITA 2675/DEL/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 130 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7091 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 30 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 10-01-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC 2
• Next Hearing Date: 15-11-2016
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 11-05-2016
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Reasonable cause

Judgement Text

I.T.A .NO.-2675/DEL/2016 RAJDHANI DISTRIBUTORS VS JT.CIT IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: SMC-II NEW DELHI BEFORE SMT DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A .NO.-2675/DEL/2016 (ASSESSMENT YEAR-2011-12) RAJDHANI DISTRIBUTORS, 6058, MAIN ROAD, SADAR BAZAR, NEW DELHI-110005. PAN-AAAFR3125R ( APPELLANT) VS JT. CIT, RANGE-39, NEW DELHI. (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY NONE REVENUE BY SH. NEERAJ KUMAR, SR.DR DATE OF HEARING 15 . 11 .2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 10.01.2017 ORDER THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE A SSAILING THE CORRECTNESS OF THE ORDER DATED 14.03.2016 OF CIT(A)-20, NEW DELHI PERT AINING TO 2011-12 ASSESSMENT YEAR ON VARIOUS GROUNDS. 2. HOWEVER, AT THE TIME OF HEARING, NO ONE WAS PRE SENT ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. THE APPEAL WAS PASSED OVER TWICE. IN THE THIRD ROUND A LSO, THE POSITION REMAINED THE SAME NEITHER THE ASSESSEE WAS PRESENT NOR ANY REQUEST FO R ADJOURNMENT HAS BEEN MOVED. THE RECORD SHOWS ON THE LAST DATE OF HEARING I.E. 27.09 .2016 IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE ISSUED ON 29.08.2016, THE ASSESSEE REMAINED UNREPRESENTED. IT IS FURTHER SEEN THAT THE NOTICE FOR THE DATE OF HEARING HAS BEEN ISSUED ON 06.10.2016 AT TH E ADDRESS GIVEN IN FORM NO.36, COLUMN NO.-10 WHICH HAS NOT COME BACK UNSERVED. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, IT CAN BE SAFELY PRESUMED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT SERIOUS IN PURSUI NG THE PRESENT APPEAL AND THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED IN LIMINE. SUPPORT IS DRAWN FROM THE ORD ER OF THE TRIBUNALS IN COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX VS. MULTIPLAN INDIA (P) LTD.; 38 ITD 320 (DEL) AND ESTATE OF LATE TUKOJIRAO HOLKAR VS. CWT: 223 ITR 480 (M.P). 3. 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-REPRESENTATION ON THE DATE OF HEARING, IT WOULD BE AT LIBERTY IF SO ADVISED TO PRAY FOR A RECALL OF THIS ORDER. THE SAID ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED ON THE DATE OF HEARING ITSELF IN THE OPEN COURT. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DIS MISSED IN LIMINE. . THE ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 10 TH OF JANUARY 2017. SD/- (DIVA SINGH) JUDICIAL MEMBER *AMIT KUMAR* PAGE 2 OF 2 I.T.A .NO.-2675/DEL/2016 RAJDHANI DISTRIBUTORS VS JT.CIT COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI