M/s. Crew B.O.S. Products Ltd., New Delhi V. DCIT, Faridabad

ITA 378/DEL/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7320 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 11 month(s) 20 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 11-01-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 06-01-2016
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 21-01-2014
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Reasonable cause

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: B NEW DELHI BEFORE SMT DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH.O.P.KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A .NO.-377 & 3 78/DEL/2014 (ASSESSMENT YEAR-2005- 06 & 2006-07) M/S CREW B.O.S.PRODUCTS LTD., 304A, JAINA TOWER-1, DISTT. CENTRE JANAKPURI, NEW DELHI-110058. PAN-AAACC3222F (APPELLANT) VS DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, FARIDABAD (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY NONE RESPONDENT BY MS. RAKHI VIMAL, SR.DR ORDER PER DIVA SINGH, JM BOTH THESE APPEALS HAVE BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ASSAILING THE CORRECTNESS OF THE SEPARATE ORDERS DATED 21.10.2013 OF CIT(A) [CENTRAL], PHASE- V, GURGAON PERTAINING TO 2005-06 AND 2006-07 ASSESS MENT YEARS ON VARIOUS GROUNDS. 2. HOWEVER, AT THE TIME OF HEARING, NO ONE WAS PRES ENT ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. THE APPEAL WAS PASSED OVER TWICE. IN THE THIRD ROUND ALSO, THE POSITION REMAINED THE SAME. THE RECORD SHOWS THAT NOTICE FOR THE DATE OF HEARING HAS BEEN SENT TO THE ADDRESS MENTIONED IN C OLUMN NO.10 OF THE MEMO OF APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN SENT AND T HE SAME HAS COME BACK WITH THE COMMENT LEFT. NO OTHER ADDRESS HAS BEEN PROV IDED BY THE ASSESSEE. APART FROM THAT IT HAS ALSO SEEN THAT THE DEFECTS POINTED BY THE REGISTRY VIDE NOTICE DATED 06.08.2014 IN BOTH THE APPEALS REMAINED UNCUR ED. ACCORDINGLY IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES IN THE ABSENCE OF CURING THE DEFECTS, WHERE ONE OF THE DEFECTS DATE OF HEARING 06.01.2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 11.01.2016 I.T.A .NO.-377 & 378/DEL/2014 PAGE 2 OF 2 POINTED IS THAT THE TRIBUNAL FEE IS DEPOSITED UNDER WRONG HEAD AND IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY PETITION GIVING ANY ADDRESS TO WHICH THE NOTICE COULD BE SENT. ACCORDINGLY, IN THE PECULIAR FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCE S OF THE PRESENT CASE, IT CAN BE SAFELY PRESUMED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT SERIOU S IN PURSUING THE PRESENT APPEALS. ACCORDINGLY IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY REPRES ENTATION OR PETITION SEEKING TIME, THE ONLY ALTERNATIVE LEFT IS TO DISMISS THE A PPEALS 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 CAS E THE ASSESSEE IS ABLE TO SHOW THAT THERE WAS A REASONABLE CAUSE FOR NON-REPR ESENTATION ON THE DATE OF HEARING; AND THE ASSESSEE IS IN A POSITION TO ADDRE SS THE DELAY THEN THE ASSESSEE IF SO ADVISED WOULD BE AT LIBERTY TO PRAY FOR A REC ALL OF THIS ORDER AND DECISION ON MERIT. THE SAID ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED ON THE DATE O F HEARING ITSELF IN THE OPEN COURT. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE D ISMISSED. THE ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 11 TH OF JANUARY, 2016. SD/- SD/- (O.P.KANT) (DIVA SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 11/01/2016 *AMIT KUMAR* COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTA NT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI