Sh. Deepak Dhar Gupta, B-1, Extn/A-41, Mohan Cooperative Indl. Estate, New Delhi-110044. Vs. ITO, Ward-22(2), New Delhi.
June, 09th 2015
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
DELHI BENCH: `B' NEW DELHI
BEFORE SMT DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER
SH. T.S.KAPOOR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Sh. Deepak Dhar Gupta, vs ITO,
B-1, Extn/A-41, Ward-22(2),
Mohan Cooperative Indl. Estate, New Delhi.
Appellant by None
Respondent by Smt. Parwinder Kaur, Sr. DR
Date of Hearing 04.06.2015
Date of Pronouncement 05.06.2015
PER DIVA SINGH, JM
The present appeal has been filed by the assessee assailing the
correctness of the order dated 26.04.2013 of CIT(A)-XXIII, New Delhi
pertaining to 2009-10 assessment year.
2. However, at the time of hearing, no one was present on behalf of the
assessee. The appeal accordingly was passed over. In the second round also,
the position remained the same. The record shows that notice for the specific
date of hearing has been sent to the assessee on 23.05.2015. A perusal of the
record shows that the appeal last came up for hearing on 12.05.2014 on
which date, none was present on behalf of the assessee and notice was
issued to the assessee through RPAD. However, on the subsequent dates
when the appeal was listed for hearing, the Bench was not functional.
Considering the fact that on the two occasions when the appeal came up for
hearing, the assessee has remained unrepresented despite issuance of notice
nor any efforts appear to have been made to inform the Bench why the
assessee is not represented. Accordingly in the absence of repeated non-
representation or petition seeking time, it can be presumed that the assessee
is not serious in pursuing the present appeal. In the circumstances, the only
alternative left is to dismiss the appeal 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).
3. 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 then it may if so advised pray for a recall of this order and
decisions on merits. Respectfully following the order of ITAT in the case of
Multiplan (India) Pvt. Ltd. (supra), we hold the appeal to be unadmitted with
the liberty to assessee to move appropriate application and correct the defect
whatsoever in the memo about its address to ensure a proper hearing of the
appeal. The said order was pronounced on the date of hearing itself in the
4. As a result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed.
The order is pronounced in the open court on 05th of June 2015.
(T.S.KAPOOR) (DIVA SINGH)
ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
Copy forwarded to:
5. DR: ITAT
ITAT NEW DELHI
Page 2 of 2