M/s. Vardhman Network Solutions Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi V. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 2838/DEL/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6669 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 6 month(s) 10 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-11-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC 2
• Next Hearing Date: 07-11-2016
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 08-05-2014
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: F R MEENA
• Keywords: Reasonable cause

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: SMC-II NEW DELHI BEFORE SMT DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A .NO.-2838/DEL/2014 (ASSESSMENT YEAR-2009-10) VARDHMAN NETWORK SOLUTIONS P.LTD., 333A, SANT NAGAR, EAST OF KAILASH, NEW DELHI-110065. PAN-AACCV0972B ( APPELLANT) VS ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-11, NEW DELHI. (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY NONE REVENUE BY SH.F.R.MEENA, SR.DR DATE OF HEARING 07 . 11 .2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 18 .11.2016 ORDER THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE A SSAILING THE CORRECTNESS OF THE ORDER DATED 28.02.2014 OF THE CIT(A)-XXV, NEW DELHI PERTAINING TO 2009-10 ON VARIOUS GROUNDS. 2. HOWEVER AT THE TIME OF HEARING, NO ONE WAS PRESE NT ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. THE RECORD SHOWS THAT ON THE LAST DATE OF HEARING I.E. 19.09.2016, THE APPEAL WAS ADJOURNED ON THE WRITTEN REQUEST OF THE REVENUE AND THE CO-ORDIN ATE BENCH NOTED THAT BOTH PARTIES HAVE BEEN INFORMED. IT IS FURTHER SEEN THAT NO POWER OF ATTORNEY HAS BEEN EXECUTED BY THE ASSESSEE IN FAVOUR OF ANYONE. DESPITE PASSING OVER THE APPEAL TWICE WHEN EVEN IN THE THIRD ROUND THE ASSESSEE REMAINED UNREPRESENTED THEN IN T HE PECULIAR FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE PRESENT CASE, IT CAN BE SAFELY PRESUMED THA T THE ASSESSEE IS NOT SERIOUS IN PURSUING THE PRESENT APPEAL. ACCORDINGLY, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED IN LIMINE. SUPPORT IS DRAWN FROM THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNALS IN COMMISS IONER OF INCOME-TAX VS. MULTI PLAN INDIA (P) LTD.; 38 ITD 320 (DEL) AND ESTATE OF LATE TUKOJ IRAO 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 18 TH OF NOVEMBER, 2016. SD/- (DIVA SINGH) JUDICIAL MEMBER *AMIT KUMAR* I.T .A .NO.-2838/DEL/2014 PAGE 2 OF 2 COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI