M/s. RRP Management Services Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi V. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 6321/DEL/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6851 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 2 month(s) 21 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 10-02-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC 1
• Next Hearing Date: 10-02-2016
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 19-11-2014
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MANOJ KR CHOPRA
• Assessee Lawyers: SANJAY MEHRA

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: SMC-1 NEW DELHI BEFORE SMT DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A .NO.-6321/DE L/2014 (ASSESSMENT YEAR-2011- 12) RRP MANAGEMENT SERVICES PVT. LTD., 15/76, 2 ND FLOOR, OLD RAJINDER NAGAR, NEW DELHI-110060 PAN-AAACR6246A (APPELLANT) VS ITO, WARD-15(1), NEW DELHI (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY SH.SANJAY MEHRA, CA RESPONDENT BY SH.MANOJ KR. CHOPRA, SR. DR ORDER PER DIVA SINGH, JM THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE A SSAILING THE CORRECTNESS OF THE ORDER DATED 22.09.2014 OF CIT(A) -XVIII, NEW DELHI PERTAINING TO 2011-12 ASSESSMENT YEAR ON VARIOUS GROUNDS. 2. HOWEVER, AT THE TIME OF HEARING, THE LD.AR SOUGH T AN ADJOURNMENT. THE LD. AR WAS REQUIRED TO ADDRESS WHY IT SHOULD NOT BE REJECTED WHEREIN AS PER RECORD THE DEFECT POINTED OUT BY THE REGISTRY ON 23 .03.2015 REMAINS NOT CURED. IT WAS POINTED OUT THAT THE RECORD SHOWS THAT THE D EFECT NOTICE POINTING OUT DEFECT IN REGARD TO THE APPEAL FEE WAS ISSUED TO TH E ASSESSEE ON 23.03.2015 THEREAFTER CAME UP FOR HEARING ON FIVE DIFFERENT OC CASIONS WHEREAS ON 16.06.2015 THE BENCH WAS NOT FUNCTIONAL IT WAS ADJO URNED. THEREAFTER IT AGAIN CAME UP FOR HEARING ON 15.07.2015 ON WHICH DATE IT WAS ADJOURNED ON THE WRITTEN REQUEST OF THE ASSESSEE TO 24.08.2015. ON T HAT DATE IT WAS ADJOURNED AS PAPER BOOK WAS FILED IN COURT BEHALF OF THE ASSESS EE. ON THE NEXT DATE I.E. DATE OF HEARING 10.02.2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 10.02.2016 I.T.A .NO.-6321/DEL/2014 PAGE 2 OF 3 16.11.2015 IT WAS AGAIN ADJOURNED POINTING OUT THAT THE DEFECT REMAINED NOT CURED. ON THE NEXT DATE OF HEARING 22.12.2015 THE APPEAL WAS AGAIN ADJOURNED AS THE ASSESSEE REMAINED UNREPRESENTED. IN THESE C IRCUMSTANCES, THE ADJOURNMENT REQUEST OF THE ASSESSEE THAT TIME MAY S TILL BE GIVEN DOES NOT HAVE ANY MERIT. VALUABLE PUBLIC TIME AND MONEY IS WASTE D AGAIN AND AGAIN IN ORDER TO GIVE A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE. THE EVIDENCE FILED BY WAY OF LETTER DATED 16.11.2015 STATED TO BE FILED ON 17.11 .2015 DOES NOT DEMONSTRATE THAT IT WAS RECEIVED AND FILED BEFORE THE RESPECTIV E AO. THE ORIGINAL WAS SHOWN BY THE LD.AR TO THE LD. SR. DR WHO ALSO STATED THAT SINCE IT IS NEITHER INITIALED BY ANYONE RECEIVING ON BEHALF OF THE AO NOR DIARIZE D WITH ANY NUMBER GIVEN. THUS THE EVIDENCE NOW RELIED UPON DOES NOT INSPIRE ANY CONFIDENCE. HOWEVER ALIVE TO THE INTERESTS OF THE ASSESSEE, LIBERTY IS GRANTED TO THE ASSESSEE TO TAKE APPROPRIATE CORRECTIVE ACTIONS AND THEN PRAY FOR A RECALL OF THIS ORDER DEMONSTRATING THAT THE DEFECT POINTED OUT IN MARCH 2015 HAS BEEN CURED. THE LD. AR MADE AN ORAL PRAYER THAT IN ORDER TO AVOID T HE LONG TEDIOUS PROCEDURE A SHORT ADJOURNMENT MAY BE GIVEN TO IT. CONSIDERING THE RECORD WHERE DESPITE 5 SPECIFIC OPPORTUNITIES WHEN THE APPEAL CAME UP FOR HEARING PLUS THE FIRST DAY WHEN THE BENCH WAS NOT FUNCTIONAL, I AM OF THE VIE W THAT GIVING YET ANOTHER OPPORTUNITY ONCE AGAIN WOULD NOT SERVE ANY PURPOSE AS UNNECESSARILY THE REGISTRY EVERY TIME IS REQUIRED TO GO THROUGH ALL T HE PROCEDURAL STEPS CAUSING THE LISTING OF THE APPEAL WHEREIN THE ASSESSEE FOR REASONS BEST KNOWN TO IT IS CAUSING THE WASTE OF VALUABLE TIME AND ENERGY OF AL L CONCERNED. INCASE THE ASSESSEE IS SERIOUS TO PURSUE THE APPEAL FILED AS O BSERVED LIBERTY IS GRANTED TO PRAY FOR A RECALL AFTER DEMONSTRATING THAT EFFECTIV E STEPS HAVE BEEN TAKEN TO CURE THE DEFECT. THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH CONSIDERING THE P ETITION IF SO MOVED, IF SO I.T.A .NO.-6321/DEL/2014 PAGE 3 OF 3 SATISFIED THAT THE DEFECTS HAVE BEEN CURED MAY RECA LL THIS ORDER. THE SAID ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT IN THE PRESENCE OF THE PARTIES. 3. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DIS MISSED IN LIMINE. THE ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 10 OF FEBRUARY, 2016. SD/- (DIVA SINGH) JUDI CIAL MEMBER DATED:10/02/2016 *AMIT KUMAR* COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTAN T REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI