M/s. Jacksons Departmental Store, New Delhi V. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 509/DEL/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7176 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 12 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 09-02-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 02-11-2015
• Assessment Year: 2003-2004
• Appeal Filed On: 28-01-2013
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: GAURAV DUDEJA
• Keywords: Reasonable cause; Condonation of delay

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: D NEW DELHI BEFORE SMT DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH.L.P.SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A .NO.-509/DEL /2013 (ASSESSMENT YEAR-2003- 04) JACKSONS DEPARTMENTAL STORE, 108B, PALIKA BAZAR, CONNAUGHT PLACE, NEW DELHI PAN-AAAFJ3021A (APPELLANT) VS ITO, WARD-31(1), NEW DELHI (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY NONE RESPONDENT BY SH. GAURAV DUDEJA, SR.DR ORDER PER DIVA SINGH, JM THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE A SSAILING THE CORRECTNESS OF THE ORDER DATED 23.10.2012 OF CIT(A) -XXVI, NEW DELHI PERTAINING TO 2003-04 ASSESSMENT YEAR ON VARIOUS GROUNDS. 2. HOWEVER, AT THE TIME OF HEARING, NO ONE WAS PRES ENT ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. THE APPEAL WAS PASSED OVER. IN THE THIRD ROUND ALSO, THE POSITION REMAINED THE SAME. WE FIND FROM THE RECORD THAT NO TICE HAS BEEN ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE ON 10.12.2015 FOR THE SPECIFIC DATE OF HEA RING. WE FURTHER, FIND THAT ON THE LAST DATE OF HEARING I.E. 2 ND NOVEMBER, 2015, NO ONE WAS PRESENT ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE NOTICE FOR WHICH DATE HAVE BEEN ISSUED ON 14.10.2015. THE RECORD WOULD SHOW THAT CONSISTENTLY THE NOTICES HAVE BEEN SENT TO THE ADDRESS GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE IN COLUMN NO. 10 IN THE MEMO OF AP PEALS FILED. IT IS FURTHER SEEN THAT THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS TIME BARRED AND NO ATTEMPT HAS BEEN MADE ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE BY WAY OF FILIN G ANY CONDONATION OF DELAY DATE OF HEARING 27 . 01 .201 6 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 09.02.2016 2 ITA NO. 509/DEL/2013 JACKSONS DEPARTMENTAL STORE PAGE 2 OF 2 PETITION SO AS TO EXPLAIN THE DELAY. IN THE CIRCUM STANCES IT CAN BE SAFELY PRESUMED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT SERIOUS IN PURSUI NG THE APPEAL. ACCORDINGLY IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY REPRESENTATION OR PETITION SEEKING TIME, THE ONLY ALTERNATIVE LEFT IS TO DISMISS THE APPEAL OF T HE ASSESSEE IN LIMINE. SUPPORT IS DRAWN FROM THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNALS IN COMMISS IONER 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). 3. 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; AND THE ASSESSEE IS IN A POSITION TO ADDRE SS THE DELAY THEN THE ASSESSEE IF SO ADVISED WOULD BE AT LIBERTY TO PRAY FOR A REC ALL OF THIS ORDER AND DECISION ON MERIT. THE SAID ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED ON THE DATE O F HEARING ITSELF IN THE OPEN COURT. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DIS MISSED. THE ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 09 O F FEBRUARY, 2016. SD/- SD/- ( L.P.SAHU) (DIVA SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 09/02/2016 *BINITA/AMIT KUMAR* COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTA NT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI