M/S. SONA OVERSEAS,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

The present case was earlier fixed for The present case was earlier fixed for 12 12 .2015 .2015 and adjourned to and adjourned to 02.7.2015. On 2.7.2015 on the written request of the assessee’s 02.7.2015. On 2.7.2015 on the written request of the assessee’s 02.7.2015. On 2.7.2015 on the written request of the assessee’s 02.7.2015. On 2.7.2015 on the written request of the assessee’s counsel, the case was adjourned 28.7.2015. On 28.7.2015, again on the counsel, the case was adjourned 28.7.2015. On 28.7.2015, again on the counsel, the case was adjourned 28.7.2015. On 28.7.2015, again on the counsel, the case was adjourned 28.7.2015. On 28.7.2015, again on the written request of the assessee’s counsel the case was further adjourned written request of the assessee’s counsel the case was further adjourned written request of the assessee’s counsel the case was further adjourned written request of the assessee’s counsel the case was further adjourned for 19.8.2015, but on 19. for 19.8.2015, but on 19.8.2015 the Bench was not functioning and the for 19.8.2015, but on 19. for 19.8.2015, but on 19. 8.2015 the Bench was not functioning and the 8.2015 the Bench was not functioning and the 8.2015 the Bench was not functioning and the case adjourned for 4.11.2015 by issuing case adjourned for 4.11.2015 by issuing RPAD Notice to both the parties. case adjourned for 4.11.2015 by issuing case adjourned for 4.11.2015 by issuing RPAD Notice to both the parties. RPAD Notice to both the parties. RPAD Notice to both the parties. On 4.11.2015, On 4.11.2015, neither the On 4.11.2015, On 4.11.2015, neither the neither the assessee nor neither the assessee nor assessee nor its assessee nor its its authorised representative its authorised representative authorised representative authorised representative appeared before the Bench and appeared before the Bench and also no adjournment application was appeared before the Bench and appeared before the Bench and also no adjournment application was also no adjournment application was also no adjournment application was fifififiled led led. . . . I I I I have perused the records and found that the Assessee has not led have perused the records and found that the Assessee has not have perused the records and found that the Assessee has not have perused the records and found that the Assessee has not given any fresh address for correspondence. In my considered opinion, given any fresh address for correspondence. In my considered opinion, given any fresh address for correspondence. In my considered opinion, given any fresh address for correspondence. In my considered opinion, no useful purpose would be served to issue notice again and again on the no useful purpose would be served to issue notice again and again on the no useful purpose would be served to issue notice again and again on the no useful purpose would be served to issue notice again and again on the same address. same address. It is thus inferred that same address. same address. It is thus inferred that It is thus inferred that the It is thus inferred that the the assessee the ssessee ssessee is ssessee is is not interested in is not interested in not interested in not interested in prosecution of rosecution of rosecution of its rosecution of its its appeal. its appeal. appeal. appeal.