M/s. Pep Infotech Ltd., Uttar Pradesh V. CIT, Meerut

ITA 3047/DEL/2013

• Counselvise Citation: 304720114 RSA 2013
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 5 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-10-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Next Hearing Date: 20-10-2014
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 15-05-2013
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SHAMEER SHARMA
• Section: 263

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES : F NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, J .M. AND SHRI J.SUDHAKAR REDDY, A.M. ITA NO. 3047/DEL/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008-09 M/S. PEP INFOTECH LTD. VS. COMMISSIO NER OF INCOME TAX SHANKER CHOWK, DELHI ROAD, MEERUT. MEERUT. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY :- NONE DEPARTMENT BY:- SH. SHAMEER SHARMA, SR. DR O R D E R PER H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE DIRECTED AG AINST THE ORDER OF LD.CIT, MEERUT DT. 18.3.2013 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 263 OF THE INCOM E TAX ACT, 1961. HOWEVER, AT THE TIME OF HEARING NO ONE WAS PRESENT ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. THE APPEAL WAS PASSED OVER. DESPITE THE SAME, IN T HE SECOND ROUND ALSO NO ONE WAS PRESENT. 2. A PERUSAL OF THE RECORD SHOWS THAT THE DATE OF H EARING WAS INTIMATED TO THE ASSESSEE. DESPITE THE SAME NEITHER ANYONE W AS PRESENT NOR ANY REQUEST FOR ADJOURNMENT WAS RECEIVED. FROM THE ABOV E IT IS EVIDENT THAT THE 2 ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED IN THE PROSECUTION OF AP PEAL. SHRI SHAMEER SHARMA, 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 THI S APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE, IF SO ADVISED, SHALL BE FRE E TO MOVE THIS TRIBUNAL 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 20 TH OCTOBER, 2014. SD/- SD/- (J.SUDHAKAR REDDY) (H.S. SIDHU) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: THE 20 TH OCTOBER, 2014 *VEENA COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1.APPELLANT; 2.RESPONDENT; 3.CIT; 4.CIT(A); 5.DR; 6.GUARD FILE BY ORDER ASST. REGISTRAR