M/s Pearls Buildwell Infrastructure Ltd., New Delhi V. DCIT, New Delhi

ITA 5209/DEL/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7397 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 9 month(s) 6 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-06-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Next Hearing Date: 14-06-2016
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 16-09-2013
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ANIMA BARNWAL
• Keywords: Reasonable cause

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: F NEW DELHI BEFORE SMT DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH.O.P.KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A .NO.-5209/DE L/2013 (ASSESSMENT YEAR-2010-11) PEARLS BUILDWELL INFRASTRUCTURE LTD., 409-10, PADMA TOWER-II, 22, RAJENDRA PLACE, NEW DELHI. PAN-AACCP7916R (APPELLANT) VS DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4, NEW DELHI (RESPONDENT) A SSESSEE BY NONE REVENUE BY MS. ANIMA BARNWAL, SR. DR ORDER PER DIVA SINGH, JM THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE A SSAILING THE CORRECTNESS OF THE ORDER DATED 28.05.20134 OF CIT(A )-XXXIII, NEW DELHI PERTAINING TO 2010-11 ASSESSMENT YEAR. 2. HOWEVER, NO ONE WAS PRESENT ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE AT THE TIME OF HEARING, THE APPEAL WAS PASSED OVER TWICE. EVEN IN THE THIRD ROUND ALSO, THE POSITION REMAINED THE SAME. THE RECORD SHOWS THAT THE APPEAL CAME UP FOR HEARING ON 19.02.2015; 01.07.2015; AND 26.10.2015 A ND ON EACH OF THESE DATES IT WAS ADJOURNED ON THE WRITTEN REQUEST OF THE ASSE SSEE. ON THE LAST DATE OF HEARING I.E. 22.02.2016, NO ONE WAS PRESENT ON BEHA LF OF THE ASSESSEE. NOTICE WAS DIRECTED TO BE ISSUED BY RPAD WHICH HAS BEEN IS SUED ON 25.04.2016 AT THE ADDRESS MENTIONED IN COLUMN NO.10 SINCE THE SAME HA S NOT COME BACK UNSERVED. THUS IN VIEW OF ORDER 5 RULE 19A OF THE C PC READ WITH SECTION 282 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, THE SERVICE OF NOTICE IS DEEMED SUFFICIENT ON THE ASSESSEE. IN THE AFORE-MENTIONED PECULIAR FACTS AN D CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY REPRESENTATION OR PETITION SE EKING TIME, IT CAN BE SAFELY DATE OF HEARING 14.06.2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 22.06.2016 I. T.A .NO.-5209/DEL/2013 PAGE 2 OF 2 PRESUMED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT SERIOUS IN PURSUI NG THE APPEAL FILED. ACCORDINGLY THE ONLY ALTERNATIVE LEFT IS TO DISMIS S THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IN LIMINE. SUPPORT IS DRAWN FROM THE ORDER OF THE TRI BUNALS IN COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX VS. MULTI PLAN INDIA (P) LTD.; 38 ITD 32 0 (DEL) AND ESTATE 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, 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. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DIS MISSED. THE ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 22 ND OF JUNE, 2016. SD/- SD/- (O.P.KANT) (DIVA SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER *AMIT KUMAR* COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTA NT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI