Arun Nayyar L/h. Mandeep Nayyar, New Delhi V. DCIT, New Delhi

ITA 5800/DEL/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 97238 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 10 month(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 08-09-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC 1
• Next Hearing Date: 10-08-2015
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 29-10-2014
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: GARIMA JAIN

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES : SMC NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI G.C. GUPTA, VICE PRESIDENT ITA NOS: 5799,5800,5801,5802,5803/DEL/2014 AY S: - 2004-05,2006-07,2008-09,2009-10,2010-11 ARUN NAYYAR L/H. MANDEEP NAYYAR VS. DCIT C-3A/137B, CENTRAL CIRCLE-23 JANAK PURI NEW DELHI NEW DELHI 110 058 (PAN AABPN5625P) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY : MS. GARIMA JAIN, SR. DR DATE OF HEARING : 10.8.2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT :8.9.2 015 O R D E R PER G.C. GUPTA, VICE PRESIDENT THESE FIVE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE FOR T HE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2004-05,2006- 07,2008-09,2009-10,2010-11 ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). THESE ARE BEING DISPOSED OFF WITH THIS CONSOLIDATED ORDER. 2. AT THE TIME OF HEARING NONE APPEARED ON BE HALF OF THE ASSESSEE APPELLANT . THE NOTICE OF HEARING WAS SERVED ON THE ASSESEE BY SPEED POST. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PREFERRED EVEN AN APPLICATION FOR ADJOURNMENT O F THE CASE. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES I AM OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED IN PURSUING ITS APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. HONBLE MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF TUKOJIRAO HOLKAR VS CWT 223 ITR 480 (MP) , WHILE DISMISSING THE REFERENCE MADE AT THE INSTANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IN DEFAULT, MADE TH E FOLLOWING OBSERVATIONS:- ITA NOS.5799-5803/DEL/2014 ARUN NAYYAR VS. DCIT 2 IF THE PARTY AT WHOSE INSTANCE, THE RE FERENCE IS MADE, FAILS TO APPEAR AT THE HEARING OR FAILS IN TAKING STEPS FOR PREPARATION OF THE PAPER BOOKS SO AS TO ENABLE HEARING OF THE REFERENC E, THE COURT IS NOT BOUND TO ANSWER THE REFERENCE. 3. ITAT DELHI BENCH D IN THE CASE OF CIT VS MULTIPLAN INDIA (P) LTD. 38 ITD 320 OBSERVED THAT THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 19 STATE THAT MERE ISSUE OF NOTICE COULD NOT BY ITSELF MEAN THAT THE APPEAL HAD BEEN A DMITTED. THIS RULE ONLY CLARIFIES THE POSITION. THERE MIGHT BE VARIOUS REASONS WITH T HE APPELLANT TO REMAIN ABSENT AT THE TIME OF HEARING. ONE OF THE REASONS MIGHT ALSO BE A DESIRE OR ABSENCE OF NEED TO PROSECUTE THE APPEAL OR LIABILITY TO ASSIST THE TRIBUNAL IN A PROPER MANNER OR TO TAKE BENEFIT OF VAGARIES OF LAW. 3. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE PRECEDENTS, THE APPEA LS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE TREATED AS UN-ADMITTED AND DISMISSED IN LIMINE. I MAY LIKE TO CLARIFY THAT SUBSEQUENTLY, IF THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINS THE REASONS FOR NON-APPEARANCE AND IF THE BENCH IS SO SATISFIED, THE MATTER MAY BE RECALLED F OR THE PURPOSE OF ADJUDICATION OF THE APPEAL. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSE E ARE DISMISSED FOR NON- PROSECUTION. (G.C. GUPTA) VICE PRESIDENT DATED: THE 8.9.2015 *VEENA COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) ITA NOS.5799-5803/DEL/2014 ARUN NAYYAR VS. DCIT 3 5. DR 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER DY. REGISTRAR SL. NO. DESCRIPTION DATE 1. DATE OF DICTATION BY THE AUTHOR 10.8.2015 2. DRAFT PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER 10.8.2015 3. DRAFT PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER 4. DRAFT APPROVED BY THE SECOND MEMBER 5. DATE OF APPROVED ORDER COMES TO THE SR. PS 6. DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER 7. DATE OF FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK 8. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK 9. DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER