Shri Anil Laul, Faridabad V. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 566/DEL/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 96888 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 6 month(s) 8 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 11-08-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 14-06-2017
• Assessment Year: 1997-1998
• Appeal Filed On: 02-02-2011
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: K K JAISWAL
• Keywords: Reasonable cause

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: A NEW DELHI BEFORE SMT DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A .NO. - 566 /DEL/201 1 (ASSESSMENT YEAR - 1997 - 98 ) ANIL LAUL, PROP. AN ANGPUR BUILDING CENTRE, KHERA DHUMASPUR, FARIDABAD - 121003. PAN - AABPL5211H (APPELLANT) VS ITO, WARD - 38(1), NEW DELHI (RESPONDENT ) APPELLANT BY NONE RESPONDENT BY SH.K.K.JAISWAL, SR.DR ORDER PER DIVA SINGH, JM THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 09.12.2010 OF CIT(A) - XXVIII, NEW DELHI PERTAINING TO 1997 - 98 ASSESSMENT YEAR , A LTHOUGH THE IMPUGNED ORDER IS A CONSOLIDATED ORDER FOR 1997 - 98 & 2000 - 01 ASSESSMENT YEAR. VARIOUS GROUNDS HAVE BEEN RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE PRESENT APPEAL. 2. HOWEVER, AT THE TIME OF HEARING , NO ONE WAS PRESENT ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. THE RECORD SHOWS THAT NOTICE FOR THE DATE OF HEARING WAS SENT TO THE ASSESSEE ON 10.07.2015 AT THE ADDRESS MENTIONED IN COLUMN NO. - 10. DESPITE THIS FACT, NO ONE WAS PRESENT. THE APPEAL WAS PASSED OVER. THE POSITION REMAINED THE SAME IN THE SECOND ROUND ALSO. ACCORDINGLY IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY REPRESENTATION OR PETITION SEEKING TIME, IT CAN BE SAFELY PRESUMED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT SERIOUS IN PURSUING THE PRESENT APPEAL. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE ONLY ALTERNATIVE LEFT IS TO DISMISS THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IN LIMINE. DATE OF HEARING 11 .0 8 .2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 11 .0 8 .2015 I.T.A .NO. - 566 / DEL/201 1 PAGE 2 OF 2 SUPPORT IS DRA WN FROM THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNALS IN COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX VS. MULTI PLAN INDIA (P) LTD.; 38 ITD 320 (DEL) AND ESTATE OF LATE TUKOJIRAO HOLKAR VS. CWT: 223 ITR 480 (M.P). 3. BEFORE PARTING IT IS APPROPRIATE TO ADD THAT IN CASE THE ASSESSEE IS ABLE TO SHOW THAT THERE WAS A REASONABLE CAUSE FOR NON - REPRESENTATION ON THE DATE OF HEARING THEN IT MAY IF SO ADVISED PRAY FOR A RECALL OF THIS ORDER AND DECISIONS ON MERITS. RESPECTFUL LY FOLLOWING THE ORDER OF ITAT IN THE CASE OF MULTIPLAN (INDIA) PVT. LTD. (SUPRA), WE HOLD THE APPEAL TO BE UNADMITTED WITH THE LIBERTY TO ASSESSEE TO MOVE APPROPRIATE APPLICATION AND CORRECT THE DEFECT WHATSOEVER IN THE MEMO ABOUT ITS ADDRESS TO ENSURE A PROPER HEARING OF THE APPEAL. THE SAID ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED ON THE DATE OF HEARING ITSELF IN THE OPEN COURT. 4. AS A RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. THE ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 11 TH OF AUGUST , 2015. S D / - S D / - (INTURI RAMA RAO) (DIVA SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 11/08 /2015 * AMIT KUMAR * COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI