Sh. Rajesh Kumar, New Delhi V. DCIT, New Delhi

ITSSA 33/DEL/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 122 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3253 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 9 month(s) 18 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 11-04-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Next Hearing Date: 11-04-2017
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 23-06-2014
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: F R MEENA

Judgement Text

PAGE 1 OF 2 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH F: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER IT(SS)A NO. 33/DEL/2014 BLOCK PERIOD : 1.4.1996 TO 18.12.2002 SH. RAJESH KUMAR, VS. DY. CIT, CC-18, 846, JOSHI LANE, NEW DELHI KAROL BAGH, NEW DELHI (PAN: AAHPK7644K) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : NONE DEPARTMENT BY : SH. F.R. MEENA, SR. DR O R D E R PER H.S. SIDHU, JM THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINS T THE ORDER DATED 30.1.2014 OF THE LD. CIT(A)-XII, NEW DELHI REL EVANT TO BLOCK PERIOD 1.4.1996 TO 18.12.2002. 2. IN THIS CASE THE NOTICE WAS SENT TO THE ASSESSE E FOR HEARING BY REGD. AD POST FOR TODAY I.E. 11.04.2017 AT THE ADDRE SS MENTIONED IN FORM NO. 36 VIDE COLUMN NO. 10. 3. ON 11.04.2017, NEITHER THE ASSESSEE NOR ITS AUTH ORISED REPRESENTATIVE ATTENDED THE HEARING AND ALSO NOT FILE D ANY APPLICATION FOR ADJOURNMENT BY THE ASSESSEE, HENCE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT NO USEFUL PURPOSE WOULD BE SERVED TO SERVE THE NOTICE AGA IN AND AGAIN TO THE ASSESSEE. IN VIEW OF ABOVE, IT IS THUS INFERRED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED IN PROSECUTION OF ITS APPEAL. PAGE 2 OF 2 4. HAVING REGARD TO RULE 19(2) OF ITAT RULES AND FOLL OWING VARIOUS DECISIONS OF DELHI BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL INCLUDING T HAT OF MULTIPLAN INDIA LTD. : 38 ITD 320 (DELHI) AND HONBLE MADHYA PRAD ESH HIGH COURTS DECISION IN ESTATE OF LATE TUKOJIRAO HOLKAR VS. CWT; 223 ITR 480 (MP), WE TREAT THIS APPEAL AS UNADMITTED AND DISM ISS THE SAME. WE WOULD LIKE TO CLARIFY THAT SUBSEQUENTLY IF THE AS SESSEE EXPLAINS THE REASONS FOR NON APPEARANCE AND IF THE BENCH IS SO SAT ISFIED, THE MATTER MAY BE RECALLED FOR THE PURPOSE OF ADJUDICATIO N OF THE APPEAL. THIS APPEAL IS TIME BARRED BY 43 DAYS AND THE SAID D ELAY HAS NOT BEEN CONDONED BY THE BENCH TILL DATE. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DIS MISSED IN LIMINE. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 11-04-2017. SD/- SD/- [PRASHANT MAHARISHI] [H.S. SIDHU] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATE:11/04/2017 SRBHATNAGAR COPY FORWARDED TO: - 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4.CIT (A) 5. DR , ITAT TRUE COPY BY ORDER, ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, DELHI BENCHES