Bharat Bhushan Nayyar, New Delhi V. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 5775/DEL/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1271 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 14-01-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 12-11-2012
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: BHIM SINGH

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH `A : NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI U.B.S. BEDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B.C. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.5775/DEL./2012 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10) M/S BHARAT BHUSHAN NAYYAR, VS. ITO, WARD 29(3), C/O RAJEEV ONKARNATH & CO., CA NEW DELHI. 1107, SURYA KIRAN BUILDING, 19, K.G. MARG, NEW DELHI. (PAN/GIR NO.AADPN0250A) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : NONE REVENUE BY : SHRI BHIM SINGH, SR.DR ORDER PER U.B.S. BEDI, J.M. THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE EMANATES FROM THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A)-XXV, NEW DELHI, DATED 10.09.2012, RELEVANT TO ASSESSMENT YEA R 2009-10. 2. A DEFECT NOTICE TICKING AT SERIAL NO.16 IN THE HEADING OTHERS ASKING FOR CHALLAN FILED IN MINOR HEAD : (400) TAX ON REGULAR ASSESSMENT INSTEAD OF (300) SELF ASSESSMENT TAX, WHICH IS NOT TREATED AS APPEAL FEES WAS SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE TO MAKE AVAILABLE THE SAME WITHIN TEN DAYS FROM THE DATE O F THE RECEIPT, BUT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT RESPOND. DESPITE SERVICE OF NOTICE OF HEARING FOR 14.01.2013, NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE NOR ANY APPLICATION FOR ADJOURNMEN T HAS BEEN RECEIVED AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF THE APPEAL. THUS, IT IS INFERRED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED IN PROSECUTION OF THE PRESENT APPEAL. 3. HAVING REGARD TO RULE 19(2) OF ITAT RULES, 1963 AND FOLLOWING VARIOUS DECISIONS OF THE TRIBUNAL INCLUDING IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. M ULTIPLAN INDIA (P) LTD., REPORTED IN 38 I.T.A. NO.5775/DEL./2012 (A.Y. : 2009-10) 2 ITD 320 (DEL.) AND THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE MADHYA P RADESH HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF ESTATE OF LATE TUKOJIRAO HOLKAR VS. CWT, 223 I.T.R. 480 (MP), WE TREAT THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE AS UNADMITTED AND DISMISS THE SAME. 4. AS A RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE I S DISMISSED FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT SOON AFTER THE CONC LUSION OF THE HEARING ON 14.01.2013. SD/- SD/- (B.C. MEENA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (U.B.S. BEDI ) JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : JAN. 14, 2013 SKB COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO:- 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT(CONCERNED) 4. CIT(A)-XXV, NEW DELHI. 5. CIT(ITAT) DEPUTY REGISTRAR, ITAT