Meinhardt Singapore Pte Ltd.- India Branch Office, Noida V. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

ITA 505/DEL/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7006 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 5 month(s) 8 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 01-07-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Next Hearing Date: 23-06-2016
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 23-01-2015
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: P DAM KANUNJNA; DHEERAJBHATNAGAR

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH E, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 505/DEL/2015 A.Y. : 2011-12 M/S MEINHARDT SINGAPORE PTE, LIMITED- INDIA BRANCH OFFICE, A-8, SECTOR-16, NOIDA, U.P. (PAN: AADCM0847K) VS ADDL. CIT, RANGE 2(2), INTERNATIONAL TAXATION ROOM NO. 412, E-2 BLOCK, PRATYAKSH KAR BHAWAN, CIVIC CENTRE, NEW DELHI -2 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : NONE DEPARTMENT BY : MR. DHEERAJ BHATNAGAR, CIT(DR) & MR. P. DAM KANUNJNA, SR. DR DATE OF HEARING: 23.06.2016 DATE OF ORDER : 01-07-2016 ORDER PER H.S. SIDHU : JM THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGA INST THE ORDER DATED 26.11.2014 OF THE ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), NEW DELHI RELEVANT TO ASSES SMENT YEAR 2011-12. 2. IN THIS CASE THE NOTICE WAS SENT TO THE ASSESSEE FOR HEARING BY REGD. AD POST FOR 23.06.2016 AT THE ADDRESS MENTI ONED IN FORM NO. 36 VIDE COLUMN NO. 10. 3. ON 23.06.2016, NEITHER THE ASSESSEE NOR ITS AUTHORI SED REPRESENTATIVE ATTENDED THE HEARING AND ALSO NOT FILED ANY APPLICATION FOR ADJOURNMENT. IT IS THUS INFERRED T HAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED IN PROSECUTION OF ITS APPEAL. 4. HAVING REGARD TO RULE 19(2) OF ITAT RULES AND FOL LOWING VARIOUS DECISIONS OF DELHI BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL INC LUDING THAT OF ITA NO.505/DEL/2015 2 MULTIPLAN INDIA LTD. : 38 ITD 320 (DELHI) AND HONBL E MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURTS DECISION IN ESTATE OF LATE TUKOJ IRAO HOLKAR VS. CWT; 223 ITR 480 (MP), WE TREAT THIS APPEAL AS UNADMI TTED AND DISMISS THE SAME. WE MAY LIKE TO CLARIFY THAT SUBSE QUENTLY IF THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINS THE REASONS FOR NON APPEARANCE AND IF THE BENCH IS SO SATISFIED, THE MATTER MAY BE RECALLED FOR THE PUR POSE OF ADJUDICATION OF THE APPEAL. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISM ISSED IN LIMINE. 6. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 01-07-2016 . SD/- SD/- [PRASHANT MAHARISHI] [H.S. SIDHU] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER SRBHATNAGAR DATE: 01-07-2016 COPY FORWARDED TO: - 1. APPELLANT - 2. RESPONDENT - 3. CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT TRUE COPY BY ORDER, ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, DELHI BENCHES