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 BENCH: ‘B’ NEW DELHI
Before: SMT DIVA SINGH & SH.O.P.KANT
ORDER PER DIVA SINGH, JM Both these appeals have been filed by the assessee assailing the correctness of the separate orders dated 21.10.2013 of CIT(A) [Central], Phase- V, Gurgaon pertaining to 2005-06 and 2006-07 assessment years on various grounds.
However, at the time of hearing, no one was present on behalf of the assessee. The appeal was passed over twice. In the third round also, the position remained the same. The record shows that notice for the date of hearing has been sent to the address mentioned in Column No.10 of the Memo of appeal filed by the assessee has been sent and the same has come back with the comment “left”. No other address has been provided by the assessee. Apart from that it has also seen that the defects pointed by the Registry vide notice dated 06.08.2014 in both the appeals remained uncured. Accordingly in these circumstances in the absence of curing the defects, where one of the defects
I.T.A .No.-377 & 378/Del/2014 pointed is that the Tribunal fee is deposited under wrong head and in the absence of any petition giving any address to which the notice could be sent. Accordingly, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, it can be safely presumed that the assessee is not serious in pursuing the present appeals. Accordingly in the absence of any representation or petition seeking time, the only alternative left is to dismiss the appeals of the assessee in limine. Support is drawn from the order of the Tribunals in Commissioner of Income- Tax vs. Multi Plan India (P) Ltd.; 38 ITD 320 (Del) and Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar vs. CWT: 223 ITR 480 (M.P).
Before parting it is appropriate to add that in case the assessee is able to show that there was a reasonable cause for non-representation on the date of hearing; and the assessee is in a position to address the delay then the assessee if so advised would be at liberty to pray for a recall of this order and decision on merit. The said order was pronounced on the date of hearing itself in the open Court.
In the result, the appeals of the assessee are dismissed. The order is pronounced in the open court on 11th of January, 2016.