The notice not received back as unserved is enough to treat served and than non appearance cannot consider

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

DELHI BENCH: ‘C’ NEW DELHI

BEFORE SHRI U.B.S.BEDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER

AND

SHRI J.S.REDDY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

I.T.A .Nos-3518 & 3519/Del./2012

(ASSESSMENT YEARs -2001-02 & 2002-03)

Inder Jain Sons (HUF)

C/o-S.Kumar Jain & Associates

2481/9, IInd Floor, New Delhi

Gurudwara Road, Karol Bagh,

PAN-AAAHI5563E

(APPELLANT)

Vs

ITO,

Ward-27(2)

New Delhi

 (RESPONDENT)

Appellant by: None

Respondent by: Sh. Satpal Singh, Sr. DR

ORDER

PER U.B.S.BEDI, JM

These two appeals of the assessee emanate from the separate orders passed by CIT(A)-XXIV, New Delhi dated 08.06.2010 & 24.03.2011 for the AYs 2001-02 & 2002-03 respectively.

2. Despite sending notice by the registered post AD sufficiently in advance, assessee did not appear nor any request for adjournment has been received. The notice has also not been received back unserved. Therefore, it is inferred that assessee is not interested in prosecution of these appeals.

3. Having regard to Rule 19(2) and following ITAT, Delhi Bench’s decision in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Multi Plan India (P) Ltd.; 38 ITD 320 (Del), MP High Court decision in the case of Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar vs. CWT: 223 ITR 480 (M.P) and various other decisions of ITAT. We treat these appeals as unadmitted and dismiss them in limine.

4. In the result, the appeals of the assessee are dismissed.

Order pronounced in the Open Court on 23.10.2012.

Sd/- Sd/-

(J.S.REDDY) (U.B.S.BEDI)

ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER

Dated: 23/10/2012

*Amit Kumar*

Copy forwarded to:

1. Appellant

2. Respondent

3. CIT

4. CIT(Appeals)

5. DR: ITAT

ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

ITAT NEW DELHI