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.

Having regard to Rule 19(2) of ITAT Rules and following various Having regard to Rule 19(2) of ITAT Rules and following various Having regard to Rule 19(2) of ITAT Rules and following various Having regard to Rule 19(2) of ITAT Rules and following various decisions of Delhi Bench of the Tribunal including that of Multiplan India decisions of Delhi Bench of the Tribunal including that of Multiplan India decisions of Delhi Bench of the Tribunal including that of Multiplan India decisions of Delhi Bench of the Tribunal including that of Multiplan India Ltd. : 38 ITD 320 (Delhi) and Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh Ltd. : 38 ITD 320 (Delhi) and Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court’s Ltd. : 38 ITD 320 (Delhi) and Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh Ltd. : 38 ITD 320 (Delhi) and Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court’s High Court’s High Court’s decision in Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar vs. CWT; 223 ITR 480 (MP), decision in Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar vs. CWT; 223 ITR 480 (MP), decision in Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar vs. CWT; 223 ITR 480 (MP), decision in Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar vs. CWT; 223 ITR 480 (MP), I I I I treat th treat this is appeal as unadmitted and dismiss the same. appeal as unadmitted and dismiss the same. I would like to I would like to treat th treat th is is appeal as unadmitted and dismiss the same. appeal as unadmitted and dismiss the same. I would like to I would like to clarify that subsequently if the assessee explains the reasons for non clarify that subsequently if the assessee explains the reasons for non clarify that subsequently if the assessee explains the reasons for non clarify that subsequently if the assessee explains the reasons for non appearance and if the appearance and if the Bench is so satisfied, the matter may be recalled appearance and if the appearance and if the Bench is so satisfied, the matter may be recalled Bench is so satisfied, the matter may be recalled Bench is so satisfied, the matter may be recalled for the purpose of adjudication of the appeal. for the purpose of adjudication of the appeal. for the purpose of adjudication of the appeal. for the purpose of adjudication of the appeal.

As a result, As a result, the A As a result, As a result, the A the Appeal of the assessee the A ppeal of the assessee ppeal of the assessee is ppeal of the assessee is is dismissed in limine. is dismissed in limine. dismissed in limine. dismissed in limine. Order pronounced in the Open Court on Order pronounced in the Open Court on 04.11.2015 Order pronounced in the Open Court on Order pronounced in the Open Court on .2015 .2015. . . . .2015