Vikram Bakshi & Co. (P) Ltd, V. ACIT Circle 12 (1),

ITA 2699/DEL/2007

• Counselvise Citation: 269920114 RSA 2007
• Duration Of Justice: 5 year(s) 5 month(s) 28 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-11-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 04-05-2017
• Assessment Year: 1998-1999
• Appeal Filed On: 29-05-2007
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SATPAL SINGH

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH C: NEW DELHI BEFORE SMT. DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI T.S. KAPOOR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A.NOS.2699/DEL/2007 & 19/DEL/2008 ASSESSMENT YEARS : 1998-99 & 1999-2000 VIKRAM BAKSHI & CO. PVT. LTD., ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX/ TOP FLOOR, MOHAN DEV, VS. CIRCLE 12(1), NEW DELHI . 13, TOLSTOY MARG, NEW DELHI. PAN: AAACV0661P I.T.A. NO.2934/DEL/2009 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2000-01 VIKRAM BAKSHI & CO. PVT. LTD., DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX/ TOP FLOOR, MOHAN DEV, VS. CIRCLE 17(1), NEW DELHI . 13, TOLSTOY MARG, NEW DELHI. PAN: AAACV0661P (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : NONE. RESPONDENT BY : SHRI SATPAL SINGH, SR. DR O R D E R PER BENCH THESE ARE THREE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAIN ST SEPARATE ORDERS DATED 23 RD MARCH, 2007, 10 TH OCTOBER, 2007 AND 22 ND APRIL, 2009 OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-XX/XIX, NEW DE LHI, PERTAINING TO THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 1998-99, 1999-2000 & 2000-01 R ESPECTIVELY ITA NOS.2699/D/07, 19/D/08 & 2934/D/2009 2 CHALLENGING THE ACTION OF THE CIT(A) IN ALL THE YEA RS UPHOLDING THE PENALTY IMPOSED UNDER SEC. 271(1)(C) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (THE ACT). 2. AT THE TIME OF HEARING NO ONE WAS PRESENT ON BEH ALF OF THE ASSESSEE NOR ANY REQUEST FOR ADJOURNMENT WAS MOVED. THE REC ORD SHOWS THAT ON THE LAST DATE OF HEARING I.E. ON 30 TH JULY, 2012 THE CASE WAS ADJOURNMENT AND BOTH THE SIDES WERE INFORMED. THE APPEALS WERE PASSED O VER. IN THE SECOND ROUND SOME GENTLEMAN STOOD UP TO SAY THAT EARLIER T HESE APPEALS WERE BEING REPRESENTED BY HIS OFFICE. HOWEVER, SUBSEQUENTLY T HEY HAD NO INSTRUCTION AS SUCH. IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT THERE WAS NO REPRES ENTATION ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE NOR THE ASSESSEE HAD CARED TO INSTRUCT ANY ONE TO REPRESENT ON ITS BEHALF, IN THE PECULIAR CIRCUMSTANCES LOOKING AT TH E RECORD WHEREIN ON EARLIER OCCASIONS THE APPEALS HAVE REPEATEDLY BEEN ADJOURNE D ON THE REQUEST OF THE ASSESSEE, IT CAN BE PRESUMED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS N OT SERIOUS IN THE PROSECUTION OF THESE APPEALS. SHRI SATPAL SINGH, SR. DR APPEARED FOR THE REVENUE. 3. CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND KEEPING IN VIEW THE PR OVISIONS OF ORDER V RULE 19A OF THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RULES , AS WERE CONSIDERED IN THE CASES OF CIT VS. MULTIPLAN (INDIA) PVT. LTD., 3 8 ITD 320 (DEL); AND LATE TUKOJI RAO HOLKAR, 223 ITR 480 (MP), WE DISMISS THE SE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE, IF SO ADVISED, SHALL BE FRE E TO MOVE THIS TRIBUNAL ITA NOS.2699/D/07, 19/D/08 & 2934/D/2009 3 PRAYING FOR RECALLING OF THIS ORDER AND EXPLAINING THE REASONS FOR NON- COMPLIANCE ETC. AND IF THE BENCH IS SO SATISFIED AB OUT THE REASONS ETC., THEN THIS ORDER SHALL BE RECALLED. 4. THIS DECISION WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT O N THE DATE OF HEARING ITSELF I.E. ON 26 TH NOVEMBER, 2012. SD/- SD/- (T.S. KAPOOR) (DIVA SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 26 TH NOVEMBER, 2012. COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO:- 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR BY ORDER *MG DEPUTY REGISTRAR, ITAT.