Latest Expert Exchange Queries
sitemapHome | Registration | Job Portal for CA's | Expert Exchange | Currency Converter | Post Matrimonial Ads | Post Property Ads
 
 
News shortcuts: From the Courts | News Headlines | VAT (Value Added Tax) | Service Tax | Sales Tax | Placements & Empanelment | Various Acts & Rules | Latest Circulars | New Forms | Forex | Auditing | Direct Tax | Customs and Excise | ICAI | Corporate Law | Markets | Students | General | Indirect Tax | Mergers and Acquisitions | Continuing Prof. Edu. | Budget Extravaganza | Transfer Pricing
 
 
 
 
Popular Search: TAX RATES - GOODS TAXABLE @ 4% :: TDS :: Central Excise rule to resale the machines to a new company :: empanelment :: VAT RATES :: list of goods taxed at 4% :: cpt :: ACCOUNTING STANDARDS :: due date for vat payment :: form 3cd :: articles on VAT and GST in India :: ARTICLES ON INPUT TAX CREDIT IN VAT :: VAT Audit :: ACCOUNTING STANDARD :: ICAI offer Get Windows 7,Office 2010 in Rs.799 Taxes
 
 
From the Courts »
  Vatsala Shenoy vs. JCIT (Supreme Court)
  Vatsala Shenoy vs. JCIT (Supreme Court)
 M.K.Overseas Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Pr.Commissioner Of Income Tax-06
 Arshia Ahmed Qureshi Vs. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-21
 CHAUDHARY SKIN TRADING COMPANY Vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-21
  Sushila Devi vs. CIT (Delhi High Court)
  Vatsala Shenoy vs. JCIT (Supreme Court)
 Deputy Director Of Income Tax Vs. Virage Logic International
 Commissioner Of Income Tax-3 International Taxation Vs. Virage Logic International India
 Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-06 Vs. Moderate Leasing And Capital Services Pvt. Ltd.
 ITO vs. Vikram A. Pradhan (ITAT Mumbai)

Surinder Kumar Gupta, 45/6b, Mall Road, Delhi. Vs. DCIT Central Circle-2, New Delhi.
January, 19th 2016
         IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
               DELHI BENCH "B" NEW DELHI
     BEFORE SHRI S.V. MEHROTRA : ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
                           AND
         MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE: JUDICIAL MEMBER

                         ITA no. 4870/Del/2015
                         Asstt. Yrs: 2011-12
Surinder Kumar Gupta,                 Vs. DCIT Central Circle-2,
45/6b, Mall Road, Delhi.                    New Delhi.
PAN: AAEHS 7458 G
( Appellant )                               (Respondent)
      Appellant by       :      None
      Respondent by :           Shri Amrit Lal

                   Date of hearing    :      11/12/2015.
                   Date of order      :      12/01/2016.

                         ORDER

PER S.V. MEHROTRA, A.M..:

      This appeal, by the assessee , has been preferred against the order dated 10-
06-2015, passed by the CIT(A)-I, New Delhi, in appeal no. 319/14-15, relating to
A.Y. 2011-12.
2. At the time of hearing none put in appearance on behalf of the assessee despite personal knowledge of the date of hearing as is apparent from the order sheet dated 09.11.2015, when the hearing was adjourned at the request of assessee's counsel to 11.12.2015 and both the parties were intimated of the date fixed in the open court. This time the assessee has not cared even to apply for adjournment. It gives an impression that the assessee is not serious in pursuing the present appeal filed. Considering the facts of the case and keeping in view the provisions of rule 19(2) of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal Rules as were 2 considered in the case of CIT vs. Multiplan India Ltd., (38 ITD 320)(Del), the assessee's appeal is liable to be dismissed for want of prosecution. 3. The Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar vs. CWT (223 ITR 480) has held as under: "if the party, at whose instance the reference is made, fails 'to appear at the hearing, or fails in taking steps for preparation of the paper books so as to enable hearing of the reference, the court is not bound to answer the reference. " 4. Similarly, Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of New Diwan Oil Mills vs. CIT (2008) 296 ITR 495) returned the reference unanswered since the assessee remained absent and there was not any assistance from the assessee. 5. Their Lordships of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. B. Bhattachargee & Another (118 ITR 461 at page 477-478) held that the appeal does not mean, mere filing of the memo of appeal but effectively pursuing the same. 6. Respectfully following the View taken in the cases cited supra, we dismiss the appeal for non-prosecution. Order pronounced in open court on 14.01.2016. Sd/- Sd/- ( SUCHITRA KAMBLE ) (S.V. MEHROTRA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated: 14/01/2016. *MP* Copy of order to: 1. Assessee 2. AO 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT, New Delhi.
 
 
Home | About Us | Terms and Conditions | Contact Us
Copyright 2016 CAinINDIA All Right Reserved.
Designed and Developed by Binarysoft Technologies Pvt. Ltd.
Binarysoft Technologies - Our Vision

Transfer Pricing | International Taxation | Business Consulting | Corporate Compliance and Consulting | Assurance and Risk Advisory | Indirect Taxes | Direct Taxes | Transaction Advisory | Regular Compliance and Reporting | Tax Assessments | International Taxation Advisory | Capital Structuring | Withholding tax advisory | Expatriate Tax Reporting | Litigation | Badges | Club Badges | Seals | Military Insignias | Emblems | Family Crest | Software Development India | Software Development Company | SEO Company | Web Application Development | MLM Software | MLM Solutions