Sh. Deepak Dhar Gupta, New Delhi V. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 3774/DEL/2013

• Counselvise Citation: 377420114 RSA 2013
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 11 month(s) 22 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 05-06-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 13-06-2013
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PARWINDER KAUR
• Keywords: Reasonable cause

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: B NEW DELHI BEFORE SMT DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. T .S. KAPOO R, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A .NO. - 3774 /DEL/201 3 (ASSESSMENT YEAR - 200 9 - 10 ) SH. DEEPAK DHAR GUPTA, B - 1, EXTN/A - 41, MOHAN COOPERATIVE INDL. ESTATE, NEW DELHI - 110044. PAN - ACNPG1164 (A PPELLANT) VS IT O , WARD - 22(2), NEW DELHI. (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY NONE RESPONDENT BY SMT. PARWINDER KAUR, SR. DR ORDER PER DIVA SINGH, JM THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ASSAILING THE CORRECTNESS OF THE ORDER DATED 26.04.2013 OF CIT(A) - XXIII, NEW DELHI PERTAINING TO 200 9 - 10 ASSESSMENT YEAR. 2. HOWEVER, AT THE TIME OF HEARING , NO ONE WAS PRESENT ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. THE APPEAL ACCORDINGLY WAS PASSED OVER. IN THE SECOND ROUND ALSO, THE POSITION REMAINED THE SAME. THE RECORD SHOWS THAT NOTICE FOR THE SPECIFIC DATE OF HEARING HAS BEEN SENT TO THE ASSESSEE ON 23.05.2015. A PERUSAL OF THE RECORD SHOWS THAT THE APPEAL LAST CAME UP FOR HEARING ON 12.05.2014 ON WHICH DATE, NONE WAS PRESENT ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE AND NOTICE WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE THROUGH RPAD. HOWEVER, ON THE SUBSEQUENT DA TE S WHEN THE APPEAL WAS LISTED FOR H EARING, THE BENCH WAS NOT FUNCTION AL . CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT ON THE TWO OCCASIONS WHEN THE APPEAL CAME UP FOR HEARING, THE ASSESSEE HAS REMAINED UN REPRESENTED DESPITE ISSUANCE OF NOTICE NOR ANY EFFORTS APPEAR TO HAV E BE EN MADE TO INFORM THE BENCH WHY THE ASSESSEE IS NOT REPRESENTED . ACCORDINGLY IN THE ABSENCE OF REPEATED NON - DATE OF HEARING 04 .0 6 .2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 05 .0 6 .2015 I.T.A .NO. - 3774 /DEL/201 3 PAGE 2 OF 2 REPRESENTATION OR PETITION SEEKING TIME, IT CAN BE PRESUMED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT SERIOUS IN PURSUING THE PRESENT APPEAL. IN THE CIRCUMSTA NCES, THE ONLY ALTERNATIVE LEFT IS TO DISMISS THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IN LIMINE. SUPPORT IS DRAWN FROM THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNALS IN COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX VS. MULTI PLAN INDIA (P) LTD.; 38 ITD 320 (DEL) AND ESTATE OF LATE TUKOJIRAO HOLKAR VS. CWT: 223 ITR 480 (M.P). 3. BEFORE PARTING IT IS APPROPRIATE TO ADD THAT IN CASE THE ASSESSEE IS ABLE TO SHOW THAT THERE WAS A REASONABLE CAUSE FOR NON - REPRESENTATION ON THE DATE OF HEARING THEN IT MAY IF SO ADVISED PRAY FOR A RECALL OF THIS ORDER AND DECISIONS ON MERITS. RESPECTFUL LY FOLLOWING THE ORDER OF ITAT IN THE CASE OF MULTIPLAN (INDIA) PVT. LTD. (SUPRA), WE HOLD THE APPEAL TO BE UNADMITTED WITH THE LIBERTY TO ASSESSEE TO MOVE APPROPRIATE APPLICATION AND CORRECT THE DEFECT WHATSOEVER IN THE MEMO ABOUT ITS ADDRESS TO ENSURE A PROPER HEARING OF THE APPEAL. THE SAID ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED ON THE DATE OF HEARING ITSELF IN THE OPEN COURT. 4. AS A RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. THE ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 0 5 T H OF JUNE 2015. S D / - S D / - ( T .S. KAPO OR ) (DIVA SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 0 5 /0 6 /2015 *AMIT KUMAR* COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI