Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi
Jacksons Departmental Store,, New ... vs Assessee on 9 February, 2016
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
DELHI BENCH: 'D' NEW DELHI
BEFORE SMT DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER
AND
SH.L.P.SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
I.T.A .No.-509/Del/2013
(ASSESSMENT YEAR-2003-04)
Jacksons Departmental Store, vs ITO,
108B, Palika Bazar, Ward-31(1),
Connaught Place, New Delhi New Delhi
PAN-AAAFJ3021A
(APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT)
Appellant by None
Respondent by Sh. Gaurav Dudeja, Sr.DR
Date of Hearing 27.01.2016
Date of Pronouncement 09.02.2016
ORDER
PER DIVA SINGH, JM
The present appeal has been filed by the assessee assailing the correctness of the order dated 23.10.2012 of CIT(A)-XXVI, New Delhi pertaining to 2003-04 assessment year on various grounds.
2. However, at the time of hearing, no one was present on behalf of the assessee. The appeal was passed over. In the third round also, the position remained the same. We find from the record that notice has been issued to the assessee on 10.12.2015 for the specific date of hearing. We further, find that on the last date of hearing i.e. 2nd November, 2015, no one was present on behalf of the assessee notice for which date have been issued on 14.10.2015. The record would show that consistently the notices have been sent to the address given by the assessee in column no. 10 in the memo of appeals filed. It is further seen that the appeal filed by the assessee is time barred and no attempt has been made on behalf of the assessee by way of filing any condonation of delay 2 ITA No. 509/Del/2013 Jacksons Departmental Store petition so as to explain the delay. In the circumstances it can be safely presumed that the assessee is not serious in pursuing the appeal. Accordingly in the absence of any representation or petition seeking time, 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; 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.
4. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed. The order is pronounced in the open court on 09 of February, 2016.
Sd/- Sd/-
( L.P.SAHU) (DIVA SINGH)
ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
Dated: 09/02/2016
*Binita/Amit Kumar*
Copy forwarded to:
1. Appellant
2. Respondent
3. CIT
4. CIT(Appeals)
5. DR: ITAT
ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
ITAT NEW DELHI
Page 2 of 2