Sudhir Arora, New Delhi V. ITO, Ward- 58(1), New Delhi

ITA 6652/DEL/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 125 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7161 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 05-07-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 03-11-2017
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S L ANURAGI

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: SMC NEW DELHI BEFORE SMT DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.-6652/DEL/2017 ( ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2013-14) SUDHIR ARORA, 9/78, GEETA COLONY, NEW DELHI-110 031 VS ITO WARD 58(1) VIKAS BHAWAN, NEW DELHI. ASSESSEE BY NONE REVENUE BY SH. S.L.ANURAGI, SR. DR ORDER THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ASSAILING THE ORDER DATED 4.7.2017 OF CIT(A)- 19 NEW DELHI PERTAINING TO 2013 -14 ASSESSMENT YEAR. HOWEVER AT THE TIME OF HEARING NO ONE WAS PRESENT O N BEHALF OF ASSESSEE DESPITE THE FACT THAT NOTICE FOR THE SPECIFIC DATE OF HEARI NG HAD BEEN SENT TO THE ASSESSEE ON 22 ND MAY, 2018 AT THE ADDRESS MENTIONED IN COLUMN NO. 1 0 IN THE MEMO OF APPEALS FILED. IT IS FURTHER SEEN THAT THE REGISTRY HAS POINTED OUT DELAY OF 55 DAYS ON 3.11.2017 IN THE FILING OF THE APPEAL BY THE ASS ESSEE. THE DEFECT IT IS NOTICED REMAINS UNADDRESSED TILL DATE. THE APPEAL WAS PASSE D OVER TWICE SINCE HOWEVER ASSESSEE STILL REMAINED UNREPRESENTED AND NO REQUE ST FOR ADJOURNMENT WAS MOVED. I AM LEFT WITH NO ALTERNATIVE BUT TO CONCLUD E THAT THE ASSESSEE MAY NOT BE SERIOUS IN PURSUING THE APPEAL FILED. RELYING ON T HE CASE OF CIT VS. MULTIPLAN (INDIA) PVT. LTD. 38 ITD 320 (DEL.) WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT ISSUANCE OF NOTICE UNDER RULE 19 BY ITSELF DOES NOT MAKE THE APPEAL AD MISSIBLE. NON-ATTENDANCE MAKES THE APPEAL DEFECTIVE AND THE ASSESSEE HAS TO CORRECT THE SAME BY GIVING PROPER ADDRESS ETC. AND PARTICIPATION SIMILARLY THE HONBLE MADHYA PRADESH HIGH DATE OF HEARING 02.07.2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 05.07.2018 2 COURT IN THE CASE OF ESTATE OF LATE TUKOJIRAO HOLKA R VS. CWT (223 ITR 480)HAS ALSO HELD IF THE PARTY, AT WHOSE INSTANCE THE REFERENCE IS MADE, FAILS TO APPEAR AT THE HEARING, OR FAILS IN TAKING STEPS FOR PREPARATI ON OF THE PAPER BOOKS SO AS TO ENABLE HEARING OF THE REFERENCE, THE COURT IS NOT B OUND TO ANSWER THE REFERENCE. THE HONBLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF NEW DIWAN OIL MILLS VS. CIT (2008) 296 ITR 495) ALSO RETURNED THE REFERENCE UNANSWERED SINCE THE ASSESSEE REMAINED ABSENT AND THERE WAS NOT ANY ASSI STANCE FROM THE ASSESSEE. REFERENCE MAY ALSO BE MADE TO THE CASE OF CIT VS. B . BHATTACHARGEE & ANOTHER (118 ITR 461 AT PAGE 477-478) (SC) WHEREIN THEIR LO RDSHIP OF THE APEX COURT HELD THAT THE APPEAL DOES NOT MEAN, MERE FILING OF THE M EMO OF APPEAL BUT EFFECTIVELY PURSUING THE SAME. ACCORDINGLY CONSIDERING THE PECU LIAR FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE PRESENT CASE, THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED FOR NO N PROSECUTION WITH A LIBERTY TO THE ASSESSEE TO MOVE AN APPROPRIATE APPLICATION AN D PRAY FOR A RECALL OF THE ORDER ADDRESSING THE REASONS FOR NON REPRESENTATION ON TH E DATE OF HEARING AND UNDERTAKING TO CURE THE DEFECTS ETC. SAID ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED ON THE DATE OF HEARING ITSELF. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE STANDS DISMISSED. THIS ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 5 TH JULY, 2018. SD/- (DIVA SINGH) JUDICIAL MEMBER VEENA COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT TRUE COPY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI 3 THIS ORDER WAS DIRECTLY DICTATED ON COMPUTER TO THE P.S. 02.07.2018 DRAFT DICTATED ON 02 .07.2018 DRAFT PROPOSED & PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER 03.07.2018 04.07.2018 DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED BY SECOND MEMBER. APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.PS/PS 05.07.2018 KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT ON FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE AR DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK. DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER.