Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCHES “D” : DELHI
Before: SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI & SHRI L.P. SAHU
This appeal by assessee has been directed against the Order of the Ld. CIT(A), Karnal, dated 03rd March, 2014, for the A.Y. 2007-2008, challenging the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961.
2 ITA.No.2102/Del./2015 Shri Jitender Kumar Karnal (Haryana). 2. Notice sent to assessee through registered post has been returned back by postal authorities with the remarks “firm has closed, returned”. No other address have been given by the assessee for the purpose of service of notice upon assessee. It, therefore, appears that assessee is no more interested in prosecuting the appeal. Therefore, the appeal of assessee is liable to be dismissed.
In view of the above and having regard to Rule 19(2) of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules and following various decisions of Delhi Bench of the Tribunal including that of Multiplan India Ltd., 38 ITD 320 (Del.); Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court decision in the case of Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar vs. CWT 223 ITR 480 (MP), and also the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. B.
Bhattachargee & Another (118 ITR 461 at page 477-478) wherein their Lordships held that “the appeal does not mean, mere filing of the memo of appeal but effectively pursuing the same, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed as un-
3 ITA.No.2102/Del./2015 Shri Jitender Kumar Karnal (Haryana). admitted”. We, therefore, dismiss all the appeals of the assessee.
In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open Court.