M/s. Vikas Auto Centre, Rudrapur V. ITO, Rudrapur

ITA 4159/DEL/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 119 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6585 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 07-06-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: I
• Next Hearing Date: 07-06-2011
• Assessment Year: 2003-2004
• Appeal Filed On: 08-09-2010
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: BANITA DEVI

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH I: NEW DELHI BEFORE SMT. DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B.C. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T. A. NOS.4161 & 4159/DEL/2010 ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2007-08 & 2003-04 M/S. VIKAS AUTO CENTRE, INCOME-TAX OFFICER, C/O AMBIKAY RESTAURANT. VS. RUDRAPUR. NAINITAL HIGHWAY, RUDRAPUR, UTTRAKHAND. (APPELLANT) (RES PONDENT) APPELLANT BY: NONE. RESPONDENT BY: MS. BANITA DEVI, SR. DR. O R D E R PER DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER: BOTH THESE APPEALS HAVE BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST TWO SEPARATE ORDERS, DATED 06.05.2010 OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-II, DEHRADUN, PERTAINING TO THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2007-08 & 2003-04. 2. AT THE TIME OF HEARING NO ONE WAS PRESENT ON BEH ALF OF THE ASSESSEE. THE APPEAL WAS PASSED OVER IN THE FIRST ROUND. EVEN IN THE SE COND ROUND NO ONE WAS PRESENT NOR ANY REQUEST FOR ADJOURNMENT WAS PLACED BEFORE THE BENCH . A PERUSAL OF THE RECORD FURTHER SHOWS THAT AT THE TIME OF FILING THE APPEALS, DEFEC TS WERE POINTED OUT BY THE REGISTRY, NAMELY, IN ITA NO.4161/DEL/2010 SHORTAGE OF TRIBUNA L FEE BY RS.500/- AND IN BOTH THE 2 APPEALS THERE WAS A DELAY OF 3 DAYS, AS SUCH A COND ONATION OF DELAY PETITION IS REQUIRED TO BE FILED. IT IS SEEN THAT THE SAID DEFECTS HAVE NO T BEEN CURED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE RECORD FURTHER SHOWS THAT THE APPEALS CAME UP FOR HEARING ON 8.11.2010 WHEN NO ONE WAS PRESENT. THEREAFTER IT AGAIN CAME FOR HEARING ON 1 0 TH JANUARY, 2011 ON WHICH DATE THE ASSESSEE WAS REPRESENTED THROUGH AN ADVOCATE AND TH ERE WAS A DIRECTION BY THE BENCH THAT THE DEFECTS MAY BE REMOVED FIRST. HOWEVER, DESPITE THAT FACT, NEITHER THE DEFECTS HAVE BEEN CURED NOR HAS THE ASSESSEE CHOSEN TO BE PRESEN T OR BE REPRESENTED THROUGH HIS ADVOCATE. IN THESE PECULIAR FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCE S, WE HAVE NO ALTERNATIVE BUT TO COME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT SERIOUS IN THE PROSECUTION OF THESE APPEALS. SMT. BANITA DEVI, LEARNED DR FOR THE REVENUE APPEARED BE FORE US. 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 CO NSIDERED IN THE CASES OF CIT VS. MULTIPLAN (INDIA) PVT. LTD., 38 ITD 320 (DEL); AND LATE TUKOJI RAO HOLKAR, 223 ITR 480 (MP), WE DISMISS BOTH THE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSE SSEE. THE ASSESSEE, IF SO ADVISED, SHALL BE FREE 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 ABOUT THE REASONS ETC., THEN THIS ORDER SHALL BE RECALLED. 4. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASS ESSEE ARE DISMISSED. 5. THIS DECISION WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT O N THE DATE OF HEARING ITSELF I.E. ON 7 TH JUNE, 2011. SD/- SD/- (B.C. MEENA) (DIVA SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 7 TH JUNE, 2011. 3 ITA NO.4161 & 4159/DEL/2010 COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO:- 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR BY ORDER *MG DEPUTY REGISTRAR, ITAT.