Mamta Kalucha, New Delhi V. DCIT, New Delhi

ITA 5835/DEL/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 52603 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-08-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Next Hearing Date: 26-08-2011
• Assessment Year: 2002-2003
• Appeal Filed On: 21-12-2010
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SRUJANI MOHANTY

Judgement Text

ITA NO. 5835/DEL/2010 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH E NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI G.E. VEERABHADRAPPA, HONBLE VICE PRESE IDENT AND SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 5835/DEL/2010 A.Y. : 2002-03 MAMTA KALUCHA 256/5, PADAM NAGAR, STREET NO. 6, DELHI 110 006 (PAN/GIR NO. : AGLPK1495Q) VS. DCIT/ACIT, CC - 15, JHANDEWALAN, NEW DELHI (APPELLANT ) (APPELLANT ) (APPELLANT ) (APPELLANT ) (RESPONDENT ) (RESPONDENT ) (RESPONDENT ) (RESPONDENT ) ASSEESSEE BY : NONE DEPARTMENT BY : S MT. SRUJANI MOHANTY, SR. D.R. ORDER ORDER ORDER ORDER PER PER PER PER RAJPAL YADAV RAJPAL YADAV RAJPAL YADAV RAJPAL YADAV: : : : J JJ JM MM M THE PRESENT APPEAL IS DIRECTED AT THE INSTANCE OF T HE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) DATED 21.9.2010 PASSED FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03. 2. THE REGISTRY HAS POINTED OUT THE DEFICIENCY IN T RIBUNALS FEES TO THE ASSESSEE. A DEFECT MEMO WAS ISSUED TO THIS EFF ECT, BUT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT MAKEUP THE DEFICIENCY IN THE TRIBUN ALS FEES. THE DEFECT MEMO WAS SENT THROUGH REGISTERED POST AS WEL L AS THROUGH COURIER. THE RECEIPT OF THE COURIER IS AVAILABLE ON THE RECORD. THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FILE GROUND OF APPEAL BEFORE THE L D. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS). SHE ALSO DID NOT APPEAR BEFOR E THE LD. ITA NO. 5835/DEL/2010 2 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS). THE ASSESSMEN T ORDER DATED 11.11.2009 HAS NOT BEEN PLACED BY THE ASSESSEE ALON GWITH THE APPEAL. IN THE DEFECT MEMO, THE REGISTRY HAD POINTED CERTAI N OTHER DEFICIENCIES ALSO. IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE OF HEARING, NO ON E APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE US. HENCE, CONSIDERING THE CUMULATIVE SETTING OF ALL THESE FACTS, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED IN PROSECUTING HER APPEAL. THEREFORE, I T IS DISMISSED FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION. 3. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 26/8/2011 UPO N CONCLUSION OF HEARING. SD/- SD/- [G.E. VEER [G.E. VEER [G.E. VEER [G.E. VEERABHADRAPPA] ABHADRAPPA] ABHADRAPPA] ABHADRAPPA] [ [[ [RAJPAL YADAV] RAJPAL YADAV] RAJPAL YADAV] RAJPAL YADAV] VICE PRESIDENT VICE PRESIDENT VICE PRESIDENT VICE PRESIDENT JUDICIAL JUDICIAL JUDICIAL JUDICIAL MEMBER MEMBER MEMBER MEMBER DATE 26/8/2011 SRB COPY FORWARDED TO: COPY FORWARDED TO: COPY FORWARDED TO: COPY FORWARDED TO: - -- - 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT TRUE COPY BY ORDER, ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, DELHI BENCHES