Rajkamal Associates Ltd., New Delhi V. ITO, WARD- 15(2), New Delhi

ITA 3996/DEL/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 126 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3970 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 22 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 11-01-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 19-06-2017
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Reasonable cause

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: SMC NEW DELHI BEFORE SMT DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A .NO.-3995 & 3996/DEL/2017 (ASSESSMENT YEAR- 2004-05) RAJKAMAL ASSOCIATES LTD., 23, PASCHIMI MARG, VASANT VIHAR, NEW DELHI-110057. ( APPELLANT) VS ITO, WARD-I5(2), NEW DELHI. (RESPONDENT) DATE OF HEARING 07.12.2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 11.01.2018 ORDER BY THESE APPEALS, THE ASSESSEE ASSAILS THE CORRECTNESS OF THE SEPARATE ORDERS DATED 24.03.2017 AND31.03.2017 PASSED B Y LD. CIT(A)-7, NEW DELHI PERTAINING TO 200405 ASSESSMENT YEAR IN THE QUANTUM APPEAL AND PENALTY APPEAL RESPECTIVELY. 2. HOWEVER, AT THE TIME OF HEARING, NO ONE WAS PRESENT O N BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. THE APPEALS WERE PASSED OVER TWICE. IN THE THIRD ROUND ALSO, NEITHER THE ASSESSEE WAS PRESENT NOR ANY REQUEST FOR ADJOURNMENT HAS BEEN PLACED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. IT IS FURTHER BORNE OUT FROM THE RECORD THAT ON THE LAST DATE OF HEA RING I.E. ON 24.04.2017 THE APPEALS WERE ADJOURNED ON THE WRITTEN RE QUEST OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE DATE OF HEARING HAS BEEN NOTED ON BE HALF OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE ADJOURNMENT APPLICATION ITSELF. ACCORDING LY IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY REPRESENTATION, IN THE PECULIAR FACTS IT CAN BE SAFELY PRESUMED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT SERIOUS IN PURSUING T HESE APPEALS. THE APPEALS ACCORDINGLY ARE DISMISSED IN LIMINE. SUPPORT IS DRAWN FROM THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNALS IN COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX VS. MULTIPLAN 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 N ON- REPRESENTATION ON THE DATE OF HEARING, IT WOULD BE AT LIBE RTY IF SO APPELLANT BY NONE RESPONDENT BY SH. N.J.SINGH, SR.DR ITA NO. 3995&3996/DEL/2017 PAGE 2 OF 2 ADVISED TO PRAY FOR A RECALL OF THIS ORDER. THE SAID ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED ON THE DATE OF HEARING ITSELF IN THE OPEN COURT. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISS ED IN LIMINE. THE ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 11.01. 2018. SD/- (DIVA SINGH) JUDICIAL MEMBER *AMIT KUMAR/DLI*/POONAM(CHD) COPY FORWARDED TO: APPELLANT RESPONDENT CIT CIT(APPEALS) DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI DATE 1. DRAFT DICTATED ON 08.12.2017 PS 2. DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR 11.12.2017 PS 3. DRAFT PROPOSED & PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER JM/AM 4. DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED BY SECOND MEMBER. JM/AM 5. APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.PS/PS PS/PS 6. KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT ON PS 7. FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK PS 8. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE AR 9. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK. 10. DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER.