M/s. Provestment Securities (P) Ltd., New Delhi V. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 6553/DEL/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7193 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 2 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 09-02-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 02-11-2015
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 09-12-2013
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: GAURAV DUDEJA
• Assessee Lawyers: SANJEEVA NARGANGCA

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: D NEW DELHI BEFORE SMT DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH.L.P.SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A .NO.-6553/DE L/2013 (ASSESSMENT YEAR-2009- 10) PROVESTMENT SECURITIES (P) LTD. 305, RATTAN JYOTI, 18, RAJENDRA PALACE, NEW DELHI AAACP8116H (APPELLANT) VS ITO WARD-14(4) NEW DELHI (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY SH. SANJEEVA NARGANG,CA RESPONDENT BY SH. GAURAV DUDEJA, SR. DR ORDER PER DIVA SINGH, JM THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE W HEREIN THE CORRECTNESS OF THE ORDER DATED 28 TH SEPTEMBER, 2013 OF CIT(A)-XVIII, NEW DELHI HAS BEEN ASSAILED ON VARIOUS GROUNDS HOWEVER AT THE TIME OF HEARING AN ADJOURNMENT PETITION WAS MOVED BY THE LD. AR SEEKIN G TIME STATING THAT THE COUNSEL IS OUT OF STATION. REFERRING TO THE RECORD IT WAS POINTED OUT THAT THE REGISTRY HAS POINTED OUT A DEFECT VIDE NOTICE DATED 30 TH JULY, 2014 INTIMATING A DEFECT IN THE APPEAL FEE. THE RECORD SHOWS THAT TI LL DATE THE SAID DEFECT HAS NOT BEEN CURED. LD. AR APPEARING IN SUPPORT OF THE PET ITION MOVED WAS REQUIRED TO EXPLAIN THE SAME. IT WAS ALSO SEEN FROM THE RECORD THAT THE APPEAL CAME UP FOR HEARING FOR THE FIRST TIME ON 2 ND NOVEMBER, 2015 AS ON THE EARLIER DATES WHEN THE APPEAL WAS LISTED FOR HEARING, THE BENCH WAS NO T FUNCTIONAL, DESPITE THIS THE DATE OF HEARING 27.01.2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 09.02.2016 I.T.A .NO. 6553/DEL/2013 P ROVESTMENT SECURITIES (P) LTD. PAGE 2 OF 2 DEFECT REMAINS NOT CURED. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES THE LD. AR WAS REQUIRED TO EXPLAIN WHY THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED IN LIMINE. 2. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY REASONS GIVEN IT IS CON SIDERED APPROPRIATE TO DISMISS THE APPEAL IN LIMINE AS THE APPEAL FILED IS DEFECTI VE. LIBERTY IS GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE TO PRAY FOR RECALL OF THIS ORDER AND LISTI NG OF THE ASSESSEES APPEAL FOR HEARING A DECISION ON MERIT IF THE ASSESSEE TAKES A PPROPRIATE STEPS TO CURE THE DEFECT. IN SUCH AN EVENTUALLY THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH CONSIDERING THE REQUEST IF SO MOVED ON THE BASIS OF MATERIAL ON RECORD MAY CON SIDER TO RECALL THIS ORDER. 3. IN THE RESULT APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE DISMISSE D IN LIMINE AS PRONOUNCED. THE ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 09 OF FEBRUARY, 2016. SD/- SD/- (L.P.SAHU) (DIVA SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 09/02/2016 *BINITA/AMIT KUMAR* COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTAN T REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI