The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company, Faridabad V. DCIT, New Delhi

ITA 2680/DEL/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 74186 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 9 month(s) 24 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-02-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 08-06-2017
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 03-05-2013
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SAMEER SHARMA

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH H NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI U. B. S. BEDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B. C. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO.2680 /DEL/2013 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09) THE GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER CO., VS. DCIT, CIRCLE 3 (2), C/O GOODYEAR INDIA LTD., NEW DELHI MAIN MATHURA ROAD, BALLABGARH, FARIDABAD PAN/GIR NO.:AAACG1068P (APPELLANTS) (RESPONDENTS) ASSESSEE BY : NONE DEPARTMENT BY: SHRI SAMEER SHARMA, SR. DR ORDER PER U B S BEDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER: THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE EMANATES FROM THE ORDE R PASSED BY LD. CIT(A) XXV, NEW DELHI DATED 05.03.2013 RELEVANT TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09. 2. IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE OF HEARING, ON EARLIER OCC ASIONS, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM A FIRM OF CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS APPEARED ALONG WITH TRUE COPY OF POWER OF ATTORNEY EXECUTED IN THEIR FAVOUR. SINCE, THE ASSESSEE NEEDS TO FILE AUTHORIZATION IN WRITING IN TERMS OF SECTION 288 OF I. T. ACT, 1961, AND IN THAT CASE, THE AUTHORIZATION FILED COULD NOT TRUE C OPY BUT ORIGINAL AND ALSO TO BE APPROPRIATELY STAMPED ON A NON JUDICIAL STAMP PA PER OF APPROPRIATE VALUE. BUT IN THE PRESENT CASE, TRUE COPY OF POWER OF ATTO RNEY WAS NEITHER ORIGINAL I.T.A. NO. 2149/DEL/2012 2 NOR APPROPRIATELY STAMPED, SO CHANCE WAS GIVEN TO T HE SAID CONCERN OF CAS TO FILE PROPER POWER OF ATTORNEY AND SUFFICIENT TIM E WAS ALSO GIVEN. ON THE ADJOURNED DATE, NEITHER POWER OF ATTORNEY WAS FILED NOR ANY DOCUMENT HAS BEEN FURNISHED. SO REQUEST FOR ADJOURNMENT FILED B Y PURPORTED AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY IN THE ABSENCE OF PROPER AND VALID POWER OF ATTORNEY IS OF NO CONSEQUENCE AND AS SUCH, IS NOT CONSIDERED. SINCE ASSESSEE DID NOT APPEAR ON THE DATE / ADJOURNED DATE, THEREFORE, WE INFER T HAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED IN PROSECUTION OF THIS APPEAL. 3. HAVING REGARD TO RULE 19(2) OF ITAT RULES AND FO LLOWING VARIOUS DECISIONS OF DIFFERENT BENCHES INCLUDING THAT OF DE LHI BENCH DECISION IN THE CASE OF MULTIPLAN INDIA LTD. AS REPORTED IN 38 ITD 320 (DEL.), HONBLE HIGH COURT DECISION IN THE CASE OF ESTATE OF LATE TUKOJI RAO HOLKAR VS. CWT; 223 ITR 480 (M.P.) AND CIT VS. B.N. BHATTACHARGEE AND A NOTHER; 118 ITR 461, WE TREAT THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE AS UNADMITTED AND DISMISS THE SAME IN LIMINI. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DIS MISSED. 5. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 27 TH FEB., 2014 SD./- SD./- (B. C. MEENA) (U.B.S.BEDI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATE: 27 TH FEB., 2014. SP. COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A)-XXV, NEW DELHI AR, ITAT, 5. CIT(ITAT), NEW DELHI NEW DELHI