NITIN YADAV, NEW DELHI V. ITO, WARD- 44(4), NEW DELHI

ITA 6885/DEL/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 125 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7181 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 11-07-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 16-11-2017
• 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, JUDICI AL MEMBER ITA NO.-6885/DEL/2017 ( ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011-12) NITIN YADAV, HOUSE NO. 249 OPP. FUN & FOOD VILLAGE, NEAR MOTHER LAND SCHOOL, KAPASHERA, NEW DELHI 110 037 VS ITO WARD 44(4) NEW DELHI. ASSESSEE BY NONE REVENUE BY SH. S.L. ANURAGI , SR. DR ORDER THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ASSA ILING THE CORRECTNESS OF THE ORDER DATED 22.8.2017 OF CIT(A)- 15 N EW DELHI PERTAINING TO 2011-12 ASSESSMENT YEAR. HOWEVER AT THE TIME OF HEARING NO ONE WAS PRESENT ON BEHALF OF ASSESSEE DESPITE THE FAC T THAT NOTICE FOR THE SPECIFIC DATE OF HEARING HAS BEEN SENT ON 22MAY, 2018 AT THE ADDRESS MENTIONED IN COLUMN NO. 10 IN THE MEMO OF APPEALS FILED. THE SAID NOTICE HAS COME BACK UNSERVED WITH THE COMMENT D ATED 31.5.2018 DOOR LOCK ON 31.05.18 AND COMMENT DATED 11.6.2018 POOCHH-TAACHH KE BAAD. . IT IS FURTHER SEEN THAT VARIOUS DEFECTS HAVE BEEN POINTED OUT BY THE REGISTRY ON 15.11.2 017 WHICH HAVE REMAINED UNADDRESSED TILL DATE. ACCORDINGLY IN THE PE CULIAR FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES I HAVE NO ALTERNATIVE BUT TO PRESUM E THAT THE ASSESSEE MAY NOT BE SERIOUS IN PURSUING THE APPEAL FILED. 2. RELIANCE IS PLACED ON THE CASE OF CIT VS. MULTIPLAN (IND IA) PVT. LTD. 38 ITD 320 (DEL.) WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT ISSUANCE O F NOTICE UNDER RULE 19 BY ITSELF DOES NOT MAKE THE APPEAL ADMISSIB LE. 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 COURT ALSO IN THE CASE OF E STATE OF LATE DATE OF HEARING 02.07 .2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 11.07 .2018 ITA-6885/DEL/2017 PAGE 2 OF 2 TUKOJIRAO HOLKAR 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 PREPARATION OF THE PAPER B OOKS SO AS TO ENABLE HEARING OF THE REFERENCE, THE COURT IS NOT BOUND TO ANSWER THE REFERENCE. THE HONBLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF NEW DIWAN OIL MILLS VS. CIT (2008) 296 ITR 495) HAS ALSO RETURNED THE REFE RENCE UNANSWERED SINCE THE ASSESSEE REMAINED ABSENT AND THE RE WAS NOT ANY ASSISTANCE 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 LORDSHIP OF THE APEX COURT HELD THAT THE APPEAL DOES NOT MEAN, MERE FILING OF THE MEMO OF APPEAL BUT EFFECTIVE LY PURSUING THE SAME. ACCORDINGLY CONSIDERING THE PECULIAR FAC TS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE PRESENT CASE, THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED FOR NON PROSECUTION WITH A LIBERTY TO ASSESSEE TO MOVE AN APPRO PRIATE APPLICATION AND PRAY FOR A RECALL OF THE ORDER ADDRESSING THE REASONS FOR NON REPRESENTATION ON THE DATE OF HEARING AND UNDERTAK ING TO CURE THE DEFECTS ETC. SAID ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED ON THE DATE OF HEARING ITSELF. 3. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE STANDS DISMISSED. THIS ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 11 TH JULY,2018 SD/- (DIVA SINGH) JUDICIAL MEMBER VEENA/POONAM(CHD) COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT TRUE COPY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI