Shri Arvind Kumar Nandal, Rohtak V. ITO, Rohtak

ITA 3797/DEL/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 121 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4238 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 14 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-10-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC 3
• Next Hearing Date: 13-10-2016
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 29-06-2016
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: B RAMAN JANJULU

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH SMC-3, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NOS. 3796 & 3797/DEL/2016 A.YRS. : 2011-12 & 2011-12 SH. ARVIND KUMAR NANDAL, S/O SH. SUMER SINGH NANDAL R/O V.P.O. BOHAR, DISTT ROHTAK VS INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD1, ROHTAK (HARYANA) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : NONE DEPARTMENT BY : SH. B. RAMAN JANJULU, SR. DR DATE OF HEARING: 13.10.2016 DATE OF ORDER : 13-10-2016 ORDER PER H.S. SIDHU : JM THESE APPEALS ARE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DIREC TED AGAINST THE SEPARATE ORDERS BOTH DATED 18.2.2016 OF THE LD. C IT(A), FARIDABAD RELEVANT TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12. SIN CE THESE APPEALS WERE PERTAIN TO SAME ASSESSEE AND THEREFORE, HEARD TOGETHER. HENCE, THESE APPEALS ARE BEING DISPOSED OF BY THIS COMMON ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 2. IN THESE CASES THE NOTICES WERE SENT TO THE ASSESS EE FOR HEARING BY REGD. AD POST FOR 13.10.2016 AT THE ADDR ESS MENTIONED IN FORM NO. 36 VIDE COLUMN NO. 10. HOWEVER, THE SAME HAS BEEN RETURNED BACK WITH THE POSTAL REMARKS RECEIVER NOT F OUND. ASSESSEE ALSO HAS NOT FURNISHED ANY FRESH ADDRESS BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 3. THEREFORE, ON 13.10.2016, NEITHER THE ASSESSEE NOR HIS AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE/COUNSEL ATTENDED THE HEARIN G AND ALSO NOT FILED ANY APPLICATION FOR ADJOURNMENT. IT IS THUS INFERRED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED IN PROSECUTION OF HIS A PPEALS. EVEN OTHERWISE, THE PRESENT APPEALS ARE TIME BARRED BY 47 DAYS WHICH HAS NOT BEEN CONDONED BY THE BENCH TILL DATE. ITA NOS.3796 &3797/DEL/2016 2 4. HAVING REGARD TO RULE 19(2) OF ITAT RULES AND FOL LOWING VARIOUS DECISIONS OF DELHI BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL INC LUDING THAT OF MULTIPLAN INDIA LTD. : 38 ITD 320 (DELHI) AND HONBLE MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURTS DECISION IN ESTATE OF LATE TUKOJ IRAO HOLKAR VS. CWT; 223 ITR 480 (MP), I TREAT THESE APPEALS AS UNA DMITTED AND DISMISS THE SAME. I MAY LIKE TO CLARIFY THAT SUBSEQ UENTLY IF THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINS THE REASONS FOR NON APPEARANCE AND IF THE BENCH IS SO SATISFIED, THE MATTER MAY BE RECALLED FOR THE PUR POSE OF ADJUDICATION OF THE APPEALS. 5. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED IN LIMINE. 6. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 13-10-2016 . SD/- [H.S. SIDHU] JUDICIAL MEMBER SRBHATNAGAR DATE: 13-10-2016 COPY FORWARDED TO: - 1. APPELLANT - 2. RESPONDENT - 3. CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT TRUE COPY BY ORDER, ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, DELHI BENCHES ITA NOS.3796 &3797/DEL/2016 3