DCIT, New Delhi V. Shri Sanjay Taneja, New Delhi

ITA 6380/DEL/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7069 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 9 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-09-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC 1
• Next Hearing Date: 29-08-2016
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 02-12-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: F R MEENA SENIOR
• Keywords: Reasonable cause

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH SMC-1: NEW DELHI BEFORE SMT. DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.6482/DEL/2015 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2011-12) M/S. RAJAN SURI (HUF), VS. ACIT, CIRCLE 32 (1), M 12, JANGPURA EXTENSION, NEW DELHI. NEW DELHI 110 014. (PAN : AAJHR1971G) (APPLICANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : NONE REVENUE BY : SHRI F.R. MEENA, SENIOR DR DATE OF HEARING : 29.08.2016 DATE OF ORDER : 21.09.2016 O R D E R THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ASSAILING THE CORRECTNESS OF THE ORDER DATED 12.10.2015 OF CIT(A)-18, NEW DELHI PERTAINING TO 2011-12 ASSESSMENT YEAR ON VARIOUS GROUNDS. 2. HOWEVER, NO ONE WAS PRESENT ON BEHALF OF THE ASS ESSEE AT THE TIME OF HEARING, THE APPEAL WAS PASSED OVER. THE RECORD SHOWS THAT THE NOTICE HAS BEEN SENT TO THE ASSESSEE ON 20.07.2016. A PETITION ON BEHALF OF SO ME COUNSEL IS PLACED ON RECORD BY THE REGISTRY. THE RECORD SHOWS THAT NEITHER ANY PO WER OF ATTORNEY HAS BEEN ISSUED IN FAVOUR OF THE SAID COUNSEL NOR DID HE REPRESENT THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE AO OR THE CIT(A). IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY APPROPRIATE REPRESEN TATION ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE, IT CAN SAFELY BE PRESUMED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT SER IOUS IN PURSUING THE APPEAL FILED. ACCORDINGLY, THE ONLY ALTERNATIVE LEFT IS TO DISMIS S THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IN LIMINE. ITA NO.6482/DEL/2015 2 SUPPORT IS DRAWN FROM THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNALS IN COMMISSIONER OF INCOME- TAX VS. MULTI PLAN INDIA (P) LTD.; 38 ITD 320 (DEL) AND ESTATE OF LATE TUKOJIRAO HOLKAR VS. CWT: 223 ITR 480 (M.P). IT MAY BE FURTH ER NOTED THAT TILL THE DATE OF PASSING OF THIS ORDER, NO REPRESENTATION OR POWER O F ATTORNEY IN FAVOUR OF COUNSEL HAD BEEN FILED DESPITE THE FACT THAT DISMISSED IN LIMIN E ON THE GROUND WAS PRONOUNCED ON THE DATE OF HEARING ITSELF IN THE OPEN COURT. 3. BEFORE PARTING IT IS APPROPRIATE TO ADD THAT IN CAS E THE ASSESSEE IS ABLE TO SHOW THAT THERE WAS A REASONABLE CAUSE FOR NON-REPRESENT ATION ON THE DATE OF HEARING, IT WOULD BE AT LIBERTY IF SO ADVISED TO PRAY FOR A REC ALL OF THIS ORDER. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DIS MISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 21 ST DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2016. SD/- (DIVA SINGH) JUDICIAL MEMBER TS COPY FORWARDED TO : 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A)-18, NEW DELHI. 5. DR, ITAT. ASSTT. REGISTRAR, ITAT, NEW DELHI.