Deloitte Haskins & Sells, Gurgaon V. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 2927/DEL/2013

• Counselvise Citation: 292720114 RSA 2013
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 4 month(s) 10 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-09-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 16-05-2017
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 13-05-2013
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: DEVI SHARAN SINGH
• Assessee Lawyers: VIBHA BHATIJA

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: B NEW DELHI BEFORE SMT . DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND S H .O.P.KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A .NO. - 2927 /DEL/201 3 (ASSESSMENT YEAR - 2009 - 10 ) DELOITTE HASKINS & SELLS, 7 TH FLOOR, BUILDING 10, TOWER - B, DLF CYBER CITY COMPLEX, DLF CITY, PHASE - II, GURGAON - 122002. PAN - AABFD2095B (APPELLANT) VS ACIT, CIRCLE - 37(1), NEW DELHI (RESPONDENT ) APPELLANT BY MS. VIBHA BHATIJA, CA RESPONDENT BY DEVI SHARAN SINGH, SR. DR ORDER PER DIVA SINGH, JM THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ASSAILING THE CORRECTNESS OF THE ORDER DATED 14.01.2013 OF CIT(A) - XXVIII, NEW DELHI PERTAINING TO 2009 - 10 ASSESSMENT YEAR ON VARIOUS GROUNDS. 2. A T THE TIME OF HEARING , AN ADJOURNMENT PETITION WAS MOVED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE SEEKING TIME. CONSIDERING THE RECO RD, THE L D. AR WAS REQUIRED TO ADDRESS AS TO WHY THE ADJOURNMENT SHOULD NOT BE REJECTED AS THE DEFECT POINTED OUT BY THE REGISTRY ON 22.08.2013 TILL DATE REMAINS NOT CURED. IT WAS POINTED OUT THAT THE RECORD SHOWS THAT THE PRESENT APPEAL CAME UP FOR HEARING ON 07.11.2013 ON WHICH DATE IT WAS ADJOURNED AS DESPITE ISSUANCE OF NOTICE, NO ONE WAS PRESENT ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. THEREAFTER THE APPEAL CAME UP FOR HEARING ON 04.09.2014; 29.01.2015 & AG AIN ON 18.03.2015 AND ON EACH OF THESE DATES IT WAS ADJOURNED ON THE WRITTEN REQUEST OF THE ASSESSEE. IN THESE DATE OF HEARING 23 .0 9 .2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 23 .0 9 .2015 I.T.A .NO. - 2927 / DEL/201 3 PAGE 2 OF 2 CIRCUMSTANCES THE ADJOURNMENT REQUEST MOVED WAS REJECTED FOR IN WRITING ON THE FOLLOWING GROUND: - REJECTED. CURE THE DEFECT. LIBERTY GIVEN TO PRAY FOR A RECALL. 2.1. BEFORE THE RISING OF THE COURT, AN ORAL REQUEST WAS MADE BY MS. EKTA CHOPRA, CA REQUE STING THAT AN OPPORTUNITY MAY BE GIVEN TO CURE THE DEFECT. THE REQUEST WAS REJECTED INFORMING HE LD.AR THAT THE ADJOURNMENT PETITION ALREADY STOOD REJECTED WITH THE ABOVE QUOTED OBSERVATION. 3. IN VIEW OF THE AFORE - MENTIONED PECULIAR FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES WHERE THE RECORD SHOWS THAT ON EACH OF THE DATES MENTIONED ABOVE ADJOURNMENT HAS BEEN MOVED COUPLED BY THE FACT THAT THE DEFECT POINTED OU T BY THE REGISTRY REQUIRING THE ASSESSEE TO CARRY OUT NECESSARY ACTION TO ENSURE THAT THE TRIBUNAL FEE IS DEPOSITED UNDER THE CORRECT HEAD AS INDICATED BY THE NOTICE DATED 22.08.2013 TILL DATE HAS NOT BEEN ACTED UPON AND REMAIN UNADDRESSED LEADS TO THE CON CLUSION THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT SERIOUS IN PURSUING THE APPEAL FILED. THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED IN LIMINE. BEFORE PARTING, WE ADD THAT IN CASE THE ASSESSEE IS SERIOUS IN PURSUING THE APPEAL FILED THEN IT WOULD BE AT LIBERTY TO PRAY FOR A RECALL OF THIS O RDER BY MOVING AN APPROPRIATE PETITION AND ALSO BY TAKING APPROPRIATE ACTION TO CORRECT THE DEFECTS POINTED OUT . THE CO - ORDINATE BENCH CONSIDERING THE PETITION IF SO MOVED, IF SO SATISFIED WITH THE EXPLANATION AND THE ACTIONS OF CURING T HE DEFECTS MAY REC ALL THIS ORDER. THE SAID ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT IN THE PRESENCE OF THE PARTIES. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED IN LIMINE . THE ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 2 3 RD OF SEPTEMBER , 2015. SD/ - SD/ - (O.P.KANT) (DIVA SINGH) ACCOUNT ANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 2 3 /09 /2015 * AMIT KUMAR * COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI