Maharani Royal Developers P.Ltd, New Delhi V. ITO, Ward-16(1), New Delhi

ITA 7004/DEL/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 125 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7185 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 11-07-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 22-11-2017
• 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.-7004/DEL/2017 ( ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2014-15) MAHARANI ROYAL DEVELOPERS P. LTD. D-15, AMAR BHWAN, HAUZ KHAS, NEW DELHI-110 016 PAN NO.AAHCM6992P V S ITO, WARD 16(1 ) DELHI. ASSESSEE BY NONE REVENUE BY SH. S.L. ANURAGI , SR. DR ORDER THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ASSAILIN G THE CORRECTION OF THE ORDER DATED 22.9.2017 OF CIT(A) MEERU T PERTAINING TO 2014-15 ASSESSMENT YEAR ON VARIOUS GROUNDS. 2. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, NO ONE WAS PRESENT ON B EHALF OF THE. THE APPEAL WAS PASSED OVER. IN THE SECOND ROUND ALSO NO ON E WAS PRESENT. THE RECORD SHOWS THAT NOTICE FOR THE DATE OF HEARING HA S BEEN SENT TO THE ASSESSEE ON 01.06.2018 AT THE ADDRESS GIVEN IN THE MEMO OF APPEAL. IT IS FURTHER SEEN THAT TILL DATE, NO POWER OF ATTORNEY HA S BEEN EXECUTED IN FAVOUR OF ANY COUNSEL. IN THESE PECULIAR FACTS AND CIRCUM STANCES, IT CAN BE SAFELY PRESUMED THAT ASSESSEE MAY NOT BE SERIO US IN PURSUING THE APPEAL FILED. RELYING ON THE CASE OF CIT VS. MULTIPLAN (IN DIA) PVT. LTD. 38 ITD 320 (DEL.) WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT ISSUA NCE OF 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 ENSURE PAR TICIPATION. SIMILARLY THE HONBLE MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT IN THE CA SE OF ESTATE OF LATE TUKOJIRAO HOLKAR VS. CWT (223 ITR 480) HAS ALSO HE LD 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 BOOKS SO AS TO ENABLE HEARING OF THE REFERENCE, THE COURT IS NOT BOUND TO ANSWER THE REFERENCE. THE HONBLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT ALSO IN THE CAS E OF NEW DIWAN OIL MILLS VS. CIT (2008) 296 ITR 495) RETURNED T HE DATE OF HEARING 03 .07 .2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 11. 07 .2018 ITA-7004/DEL/2017 PAGE 2 OF 2 2 REFERENCE UNANSWERED SINCE THE ASSESSEE REMAINED ABSEN T AND THERE WAS NOT ANY ASSISTANCE FROM THE ASSESSEE. REFERENCE MAY ALSO BE MADE TO THE CASE OF CIT VS. B. BHATTACHARGEE & ANOTHER (1 18 ITR 461 AT PAGE 477-478) (SC) WHEREIN THEIR LORDSHIP OF THE APEX COU RT HELD THAT THE APPEAL DOES NOT MEAN, MERE FILING OF THE MEMO OF APPEA L BUT EFFECTIVELY PURSUING THE SAME. ACCORDINGLY CONSIDERING THE PECULIAR FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE PRESENT CASE, THE APPEAL IS DIS MISSED FOR NON PROSECUTION WITH A LIBERTY TO THE ASSESSEE TO MOVE AN A PPROPRIATE 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. THE ORDER IS 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