Pardeep Polymers (Pvt. Ltd., Delhi V. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 4456/DEL/2011

• Counselvise Citation: 445620114 RSA 2011
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 4 month(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 14-02-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Next Hearing Date: 13-02-2014
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 05-10-2011
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Reasonable cause

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: F NEW DELHI BEFORE SMT DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI T.S.KAPOOR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A .NO.-4456/DEL/2011 (ASSESSMENT YEAR-2008-09) PARDEEP POLYMERS PVT. LTD., BU-1, SFS FLATES, PITAMPURA, NEW DELHI-100034 PAN-AAACP8047R (APPELLANT) VS ITO, WARD-14(3), C.R. BUILDING, NEW DELHI (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: NONE RESPONDENT BY: MS. MEENAKSHI VOHRA, SR. DR ORDER PER DIVA SINGH, JM THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST TH E ORDER DATED 29.07.2011 OF CIT(A)-XVII, NEW DELHI PERTAINING TO 2008-09 A SSESSMENT YEAR. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, NO ONE WAS PRESENT ON BEHALF OF THE ASS ESSEE. ACCORDINGLY THE APPEAL WAS PASSED OVER. THE POSITION REMAINED THE SAME IN THE SECOND AND THIRD ROUND ALSO WHEN IT WAS CALLED OUT. THE RECORD SHOWS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO NOT CARED TO PLACE ANY ADJOURNMENT PETITION SEEKING TIM E FOR THE DATE OF HEARING. IT IS FURTHER SEEN THAT THE NOTICE HAS BEEN SENT TO THE A SSESSEE ON 05.12.2013 FIXING THE DATE OF HEARING AS 13.02.2014. IT IS FURTHER SEEN THAT THE DEFECT POINTED OUT BY THE REGISTRY HAS NOT BEEN CURED. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANC ES, IT CAN BE SAFELY PRESUMED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT SERIOUS IN PURS UING THE PRESENT APPEAL. THE LAW ASSISTS THOSE WHO ARE VIGILANT AND THE ASSE SSEES NON-REPRESENTATION IN THE BACKGROUND DISCUSSED CLEARLY DEMONSTRATES THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT SERIOUS IN PURSUING THE PRESENT APPEAL. ACCORDINGLY, WE DISM ISS THE APPEAL IN LIMINE. WE I.T.A .NO.-4456/DEL/2011 2 FIND SUPPORT FROM THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNALS IN COM MISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX VS. MULTI PLAN INDIA (P) LTD.; 38 ITD 320 (DEL) AND EST ATE OF LATE TUKOJIRAO HOLKAR VS. CWT: 223 ITR 480 (M.P). IN THE SAID CASE WHILE DISMISSING THE REFERENCE MADE AT THE INSTANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IN DEFAULT THE HONBLE COURT MADE FOLLOWING OBSERVATIONS IN THEIR ORDER- IF THE PARTY, AT WHOSE INSTANCE THE REFERENCE IS M ADE, FAILS TO APPEAR AT THE HEARING, OR FAILS IN TAKING STEPS FOR PREPARATION O F THE PAPER BOOKS SO AS TO ENABLE HEARING OF THE REFERENCE, THE COURT IS NOT B OUND TO ANSWER THE REFERENCE. 2. WE HASTEN 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 DECISIO NS ON MERITS. THE SAID ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED ON THE DATE OF HEARING ITSELF. 3. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMIS SED. THE ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 14 TH OF FEB. 2014. SD/- SD/- (T.S.KAPOOR) (DIVA SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEM BER DATED: 14 /02/2014 *AMIT KUMAR* COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT RE GISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI