M/s. Tefal India Household Appliances (P) Ltd., New Delhi V. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 7007/DEL/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7028 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 6 month(s) 16 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-07-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC 3
• Next Hearing Date: 04-07-2016
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 26-12-2014
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Reasonable cause

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: SMC-3 NEW DELHI BEFORE SMT DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A .NO.-7007/DEL/2014 (ASSESSMENT YEAR-2007-08) TEFAL INDIA HOUSEHOLD APPLIANCES (P.) LTD., UNIT NO.720, DLF TOWER-B, JASOLA, NEW DELHI-110028. PAN-AABCS8924R (APPELLANT) VS ITO, WARD-16(4), NEW DELHI (RESPONDENT) A SSESSEE BY NONE R EVENUE BY SH.DEEPAK GARG, SR.DR ORDER PER DIVA SINGH, JM THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE A SSAILING THE CORRECTNESS OF THE ORDER DATED 28.02.2014 OF CIT(A) -19, NEW DELHI PERTAINING TO 2007-08 ASSESSMENT YEAR. 2. HOWEVER, NO ONE WAS PRESENT ON BEHALF OF THE ASS ESSEE AT THE TIME OF HEARING, THE APPEAL WAS PASSED OVER TWICE. EVEN IN THE THIRD ROUND ALSO, THE POSITION REMAINED THE SAME. THE RECORD SHOWS THAT THE NOTICE HAD BEEN SENT BY THE REGISTRY ON 24.05.2016 AT THE ADDRESS MENTIONED IN COLUMN NO.10. THE SAID NOTICE HAS NOT BEEN RETURNED AS UNSERVED. IN T HE AFORE-MENTIONED PECULIAR FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY REPRESENTATION ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE OR PETITION SEEKING TIME, IT CAN BE SAFELY PRESUMED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT SERIOUS IN PURSUING THE APPEAL FILED. ACCORDINGLY THE ONLY ALTERNATIVE LEFT IS TO DISMISS THE APPEAL OF THE AS SESSEE IN LIMINE. SUPPORT IS DRAWN FROM THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNALS IN COMMISSION ER OF INCOME-TAX VS. MULTI DATE OF HEARING 04.07.2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 12.07.2016 I.T.A . NO.-7007/DEL/2014 PAGE 2 OF 2 PLAN INDIA (P) LTD.; 38 ITD 320 (DEL) AND ESTATE OF LATE TUKOJIRAO HOLKAR VS. CWT: 223 ITR 480 (M.P). 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-REPR ESENTATION ON THE DATE OF HEARING, IT WOULD BE AT LIBERTY IF SO ADVISED TO PR AY FOR A RECALL OF THIS ORDER. THE SAID ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED ON THE DATE OF HEARING IT SELF IN THE OPEN COURT. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DIS MISSED. THE ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 12 TH OF JULY, 2016. SD/- (DIVA SINGH) JU DICIAL MEMBER *AMIT KUMAR* COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTA NT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI