Swarovski India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi V. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

ITA 6066/DEL/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 126 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3698 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 3 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 08-02-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: I
• Assessment Year: 2002-2003
• Appeal Filed On: 07-11-2014
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SANJAY I BARA

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH I-1 NEW DLEHI BEFORE SHRI R.S. SYAL, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI K. NARSIMHA CHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 6066/DEL/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2002-03 M/S SWAROVSKI PRIVATE LTD., VS ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX 1A-!D, VANDHANA BUILDING, CIRCLE-7(1), NEW DELH I. 11, TOLSTOY MARG,NEW DELHI. (PAN: AAGCS4052D) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: NONE DEPARTMENT BY: SHR I SANJAY I. BARA, CIT DR DATE OF HEARING : 08.02.2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 08 .02.2018 ORDER PER SHRI N.K. CHARY, JM THIS IS AN APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER S DATED 08/08/2014 IN APPEAL NO. 81/2013-14/CIT(A)-XX PASSED BY THE LD. T HAT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-XX, NEW DELHI (FOR SHORT HEREI NAFTER REFERRED TO AS LD. CITA). 2. WHEN THE MATTER IS CALLED TODAY, THERE IS NO RE PRESENTATION ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE EITHER IN PERSON OR THROUGH AR. NOTICE W AS ISSUED TO THE ADDRESS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE. IF THE ASSESSEE IS RESI DING IN THAT ADDRESS, THERE IS NO 2 REASON FOR NON SERVICE OR FOR NON APPEARANCE. IF F OR ANY REASON THE ASSESSEE IS NOT RESIDING THERE, IT IS FOR THEM TO MAKE SUITABLE ARR ANGEMENT FOR SERVICE OF NOTICE ON AN AUTHORISED PERSON OR TO REDIRECT IT TO ANY NEW A DDRESS OR TO REQUEST THE POSTAL AUTHORITIES TO DETAIN THE MAIL TILL THEY CLAIM IT. NON APPEARANCE OF ASSESSEE IN THIS MATTER ONLY MEANS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTEREST ED IN PROSECUTING THE APPEAL. WE ARE, THEREFORE, LEFT WITH NO OPTION BUT TO HOLD THAT THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS LIABLE TO BE DISMISSED FOR NON PROSECUTION. WE FIND SUPPORT FROM THE DECISION IN COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX VS MULTIPLAN INDIA (P) L TD.: 38 ITD 320(DEL) WHEREIN THERE WAS NO REPRESENTATION FOR THE APPELLA NT IN THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL, ON THE DATE OF HEARING , NOR ANY COMMUNICATION FOR ADJOURNMENT WAS RECEIVED AS TO WHY THE APPELLANT HA D CHOSEN TO REMAIN ABSENT ON THAT DATE. THE TRIBUNAL ON THE BASIS OF INHERENT PO WERS, TREATED THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE AS UNADMITTED IN VIEW OF THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 19 OF THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RULES, 1963. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE SA ID DECISION, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED FOR NON- PROSECUTION. 3. THE ASSESSEE, IF SO DESIRE, SHALL BE FREE TO MOVE THIS TRIBUNAL PRAYING FOR RECALLING THIS ORDER AND EXPLAINING REASONS FOR NON -COMPLIANCE ETC. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DIS MISSED FOR NON-PROSECUTION. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 8 TH FEBRUARY, 2018. SD/- SD/- (R.S. SYAL) ( K. NARSIMHA CHARY) VICE PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMB ER DATED : 8 TH FEBRUARY, 2018 VJ 3 COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT BY ORDER ASSTT. REGISTRAR