Naveen Kumar Kamlesh Goyal-HUF, New Delhi V. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 4676/DEL/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 135 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0141 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 14-03-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Next Hearing Date: 14-03-2011
• Assessment Year: 2003-2004
• Appeal Filed On: 26-10-2010
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PEEYUSH SONKAR SENIOR

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH E : NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B.C. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.4676/DEL./2010 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2003-04) NAVEEN KUMAR KAMLESH GOYAL HUF, VS. ITO, WARD 26 (3), WZ-76B, POSSANGIPUR, JANAKPURI, NEW DELHI. NEW DELHI 110 058. (PAN : AAAHN6671E) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : NONE REVENUE BY : SHRI PEEYUSH SONKAR, SENIOR DR ORDER PER B.C. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARISES OUT OF THE ORDER OF CIT (APPEALS)-XXIV, NEW DELHI DATED 19.07.2010. 2. TODAY I.E. ON 14.03.2011 WHEN THE CASE WAS CALLE D ON BOARD, NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE NOR ANY REQUEST FOR ADJOURNMENT HAS BEEN FILED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. ON EARLIER OCCASION, I .E. 10.3.2011, THE MATTER WAS ADJOURNED ON THE REQUEST OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. IT SEEMS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED IN PROSECUTING THE APPEA L; HENCE, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS LIABLE TO BE UNADMITTED AND DISMISS ED, FOR NON-PROSECUTION. THE LAWS ASSIST THOSE WHO ARE VIGILANT AND NOT TH OSE WHO SLEEP OVER THEIR ITA NO.4676/DEL./2010 2 RIGHTS. CONSIDERING THESE FACTS AND KEEPING IN MIN D THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 19(2) OF THE ITAT RULES, AS WERE CONSIDERED IN THE CASE OF MULTIPLAN INDIA, REPORTED IN 38 ITD 320 (DEL) AND IN VIEW OF THE DEC ISION OF THE MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF ESTATE OF LATE TU KOJI RAO HOLKAR, REPORTED IN 223 ITR 480, WE DISMISS THIS APPEAL IN LIMINE. THE ASSESSEE, IF SO ADVISED, SHALL BE FREE TO MOVE THIS TRIBUNAL PRAYING FOR RECALLING OF THE ORDER AND EXPLAINING THE REASONS ETC. FOR NON-COMPLIANCE AND IF THE BENCH IS SO SATISFIED ABOUT THE REASONS ETC., THEN THIS ORDER MAY BE RECA LLED. 3. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSE E IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON THIS 14 TH DAY OF MARCH, 2011 AFTER THE CONCLUSION OF THE HEARING. SD/- SD/- (RAJPAL YADAV) (B.C. MEENA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED THE 14 TH DAY OF MARCH, 2011 TS COPY FORWARDED TO: 1.APPELLANT 2.RESPONDENT 3.CIT 4.CIT (A)-XXIV, NEW DELHI. 5.CIT(ITAT), NEW DELHI. AR, ITAT NEW DELHI.