M/s. Punjab Chemical Agency, New Delhi V. DCIT, New Delhi

ITA 4524/DEL/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7249 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 10 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-06-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC 3
• Next Hearing Date: 22-06-2016
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 19-08-2014
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: FARHAT KHAN
• Keywords: Reasonable cause

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: SMC-3 NEW DELHI BEFORE SMT DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A .NO.-4524 TO 4527/DEL/2014 (ASSESSMENT YEAR-2007-08 TO 2010-11) PUNJAB CHEMCIAL AGENCY, 14, NAJAFGARH ROAD, NEW DELHI-110015. PAN-AAJFP7740B (APPELLANT) VS DCIT, CIRCLE-25(1), NEW DELHI (RESPONDENT) A SSESSEE BY NONE R EVENUE BY SH.FARHAT KHAN, SR.DR ORDER PER DIVA SINGH, JM THESE FOUR APPEALS HAVE BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ASSAILING THE CORRECTNESS OF THE SEPARATE ORDERS DATED 30.05.2014 OF CIT(A)-XXIV, NEW DELHI PERTAINING TO 2007-08 TO 2010-11 ASSESSMENT YEARS. HOWEVER, NO ONE WAS PRESENT ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE AT THE TIME OF HE ARING. THE APPEALS WERE PASSED OVER TWICE. EVEN IN THE THIRD ROUND, THE POS ITION REMAINED THE SAME. THE RECORD SHOWS THAT THE NOTICE HAD BEEN SENT BY T HE REGISTRY ON 19.05.2016 AT THE ADDRESS MENTIONED IN COLUMN NO.10. SINCE IT HAS NOT COME BACK UNSERVED, THE SERVICE OF NOTICE IS DEEMED SUFFICIEN T ON THE ASSESSEE RELYING ON ORDER V RULE 9 OF THE CPC READ WITH SECTION 282 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. IN THE AFORE-MENTIONED PECULIAR FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCE S OF THE CASE IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY REPRESENTATION ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE OR PETITION SEEKING TIME, IT CAN BE SAFELY PRESUMED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT SERIOUS IN PURSUING THE APPEALS FILED. ACCORDINGLY THE ONLY ALTERNATIVE LEFT IS TO DISMISS THE APPEALS OF THE DATE OF HEARING 22.06.2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 27.06.2016 I.T.A .N O.-4524 TO 4528/DEL/2014 PAGE 2 OF 2 ASSESSEE IN LIMINE. SUPPORT IS DRAWN FROM THE ORDE R 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 48 0 (M.P). 2. 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, IT WOULD BE AT LIBERTY IF SO ADVISED TO PR AY FOR A RECALL OF THIS ORDER. THE SAID ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED ON THE DATE OF HEARING IT SELF IN THE OPEN COURT. 3. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE D ISMISSED. THE ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 27 TH OF JUNE, 2016. SD/- (DIVA SINGH) JU DICIAL MEMBER *AMIT KUMAR* COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTA NT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI