IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH SMC , NEW DELHI BEFORE MS. DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA N O. 4738 /DEL/201 6 A SSESSMENT YEAR: 20 03 - 04 HINDON FORGE (P) LTD., C/O, M/S MALIK & CO., ADVOCATES, 305/7, THAPAR NAGAR, MEERUT VS. DCIT C IRCLE - 1 GHAZIABAD PAN : AAACH4606E (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) O R D E R PER DIVA SINGH , J .M . : THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ASSAILING THE CORRECTNESS OF THE ORDER DATED 6.6.2016 OF CIT(A) , GHAZIABAD PERTAINING TO 2003 - 04 ASSESSMENT YEAR ON VARIOUS GROUNDS . A T THE TIME OF HEARING, LEARNED AR FILE D AN ADJOURNMENT APPLICATION STATING THAT THE MANAGING DIRECTOR IS NOT AVAILABLE DUE TO ILLNESS. THE RECORD SHOWS THAT THE R EGISTRY HAD ISSUED DEFECT NOTICE TO THE ASSESSEE ON 15.9.2016 POINTING OUT A DEFECT NAMELY SHORTAGE OF TRIBUNAL FEE. FURTHER, AS PER NOTING DATED 14.10.2016 NOTICE WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE AGAIN POINTING OUT THAT THE DEFECT IS NOT STILL REMOVED. THE RECORD SHOWS THAT THE APPEAL CAME UP FOR HEARING ON VARIOUS DATES I.E. 21.11.2016, 01.08.2017 AND ON MOST OF THE DATES I.E. 21.11.2016; 14.12.2016; 29.12.2016, 20.02.2016, 17.4.2017, 20.4.2017, 8.5.2017 AND 22.6.2017 THE APPEAL HAS BEEN ADJOURNED ON THE REQUEST OF THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY, THE LEARNED AR WAS REQUIRED TO ADDRESS WHY DEFECT TILL DATE HAS NOT BEEN CURED. IN THE ABSENCE OF AN Y EXPLANATION WHERE THE RECORD APPELLANT BY SH. SANJAY MITTAL, ADVOCATE RESPONDENT BY SH. T. VASANTHAN, SR. D.R. DATE OF HEARING 2 2 - 08 - 201 7 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 20 20.10.2017 2 ITA N O . 4738 /DEL/201 6 SHOWS THAT THE DEFECT DESPITE OPPORTUNITY REMAINED NOT CURED OVER THE YEARS AND THE ADJOURNMENTS GRANTED ON VARIOUS DATES IN GOOD FAITH APPEAR TO HAVE ERODED, T HE TRUST REPOSED IN THE ASSESSEE OVER THE PERIOD OF TIME LEADS TO THE INDELIBLE CONCLUSION THAT THE TRUST HAS BEEN ABUSED. THE RECORD SHOWS THAT RIGHT FROM 17 TH APRIL, 2017 ADJOURNMENTS HAVE BEEN SOUGHT ON THE GROUNDS OF INDISPOSITION / ILLNESS OF THE MANAGING DIRECTOR IN THESE PECULIAR FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, I AM OF THE VIEW THAT GRANT OF ANY MORE TIME WOULD BE A WASTE OF GOVERNMENT TIME AND MACHINERY AS THE ASSESSEE CAN BE PRESUMED TO BE NOT SERIOUS IN PURSUING TO APPEAL FILED. RELIANCE IS PLACED ON THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF COMMISSIONER O F INCOME - TAX VS MULTIPLAN INDIA (P.) LTD 1991 38 ITD 320 DELHI . 2. BEFORE PARTING, IT IS APPROPRIATE THAT IN CASE THE ASSESSEE UNDERTAKES TO CURE THE DEFECTS TO POINT OUT AND JUSTIFY THE REASONS FOR FREQUENT ADJOURNMENTS. IT WOULD BE AT LIBERTY TO PRAY FOR A RECALL O F THIS ORDER BY MAKING AN APPROPRIATE PRAYER. THE ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT AT THE TIME OF HEARING ITSELF . 3. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. PRONOUNCE ON 20 TH OCTOBER, 2017. SD/ - (DIVA SINGH) JUDICIAL MEMBER N. MISHRA ) SH 3 ITA N O . 4738 /DEL/201 6 COPY FORWARDED TO: 1 . APPELLANT 2 . RESPONDENT 3 . CIT 4 . CIT(APPEALS) 5 . DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR , ITAT NEW DELHI DATE 1. DRAFT DICTATED ON 22.8.2017 PS 2. DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR 19.10.2017 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 S R.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.