MS. PUNEET SALUJA,MEERUT vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘F’ NEW DELHI SHRI K.NARASIMHA CHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ANADEE NATH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.3292/Del/2014 Assessment Year: 2007-08 Mr. Puneet Saluja, vs ACIT, Circle -23(1), C/o M/s Malik & Co. , Advocates New Delhi. 305/7, Thapar Nagar, Meerut. PAN: AIGPS2924P

Assessee by None Revenue by Shri Surender Pal, Sr. DR

Date of Hearing 17.01.2019 Date of Pronouncement 17.01.2019

ORDER PER K. NARASIMHA CHARY, JM:

Challenging the order dated 28.02.2014 in Appeal No.367/2013-14 of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax(A)-XXVIII, New Delhi (for short “CIT(A)}, for the assessment year 2007-08, assessee preferred this appeal. 2. When the matter is called today for hearing, there is no representation on behalf of the assessee. The notice sent to the assessee by registered post to the address furnished in Form No.36. When the notice is sent to proper

address of the assessee as provided by them in Form No.36 through Registered mail with postage prepaid, if the assessee was to be found therein, the notice would have been served. If for any reason the assessee is absent temporarily, it is for the assessee to make arrange with The Postal Department either to deliver it to some other person, or to re-direct it to an address where the assessee could be found or to detain the mail till the assessee comes back and claims the same. Even if the assessee shifts from that place, it is for the assessee to notify the new address either to the Revenue or to the Tribunal or to the Postal Department. Obviously the assessee had not taken any of these steps and the non-service of notice in this matter is solely attributable to the conduct of the assessee. Since there has been no representation for the assessee either in person or through his AR, it means that assessee is not interested in prosecuting the appeal. We are left with no option but to hold that the appeal of the assessee is liable to be dismissed for non prosecution. 3. We find support from the decision in Commissioner of Income-tax vs Multiplan India (P) Ltd.: 38 ITD 320(Del) wherein there was no representation for the appellant in the appeal filed by the revenue before the Tribunal, on the date of hearing, nor any communication for adjournment was received as to why the appellant had chosen to remain absent on that date. The Tribunal on the basis of inherent powers, treated the appeal filed by the revenue as unadmitted in view of the provisions of Rule 19 of the Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963. Respectfully following the said decision, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed for non- prosecution.

Order pronounced in the Open Court on 17.01.2019. Sd/- sd/- (ANADEE NATH MISHRA) (K. NARASIMHA CHARY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 17th January, 2019 VJ Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) DR: ITAT 5. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI

Draft dictated on 17.01.2019 Draft placed before author 17.01.2019 Draft proposed & placed before the second member Draft discussed/approved by Second Member. Approved Draft comes to the Sr.PS/PS Kept for pronouncement on Date of uploading order on the website 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.