Sh. Rana Singh, Chandigarh V. DDIT (Intl. Taxation), Chandigarh

ITA 1004/CHANDI/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6977 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 10 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 02-08-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: Not Allotted
• Next Hearing Date: 08-02-2017
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 21-09-2016
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MANJIT SINGH

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH, CHANDIGARH BEFORE MS. DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B.R.R.KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NOS. 1004/CHD/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010-2011 SH RANA SINGH, VS. THE DDIT (INTL.TXATION), SCO 8-9, SECTOR 17B, CIRCLE-CHANDIGARH. CHANDIGARH. CHANDIGARH. PAN NO. ADQPS0152G (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY : SHRI MANJIT SINGH, CIT-DR DATE OF HEARING : 06.07.2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 02.08.2017 ORDER PER MS. DIVA SINGH,JM THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ASS AILING THE CORRECTNESS OF THE ORDER DATED 30.06.2010 OF CIT (APPEAL S)-43 NEW DELHI PERTAINING TO 2010-11 ASSESSMENT YEAR ON VARIOUS GROUN DS. HOWEVER, AT THE TIME OF HEARING, NO ONE WAS PRESENT ON BEHALF OF THE ASSES SEE. THE APPEAL WAS PASSED OVER THRICE. DESPITE THIS FACT, NEITHER THE AS SESSEE WAS PRESENT NOR ANY REQUEST FOR ADJOURNMENT HAS BEEN PLACED BEFORE US. IN FACT RIGHT TILL THE PASSING OF THE ORDER, NO ADJOURNMENT REQUEST HAS B EEN RECEIVED. ACCORDINGLY, IN THE AFOREMENTIONED PECULIAR FACTS AND CIRCUM STANCES OF THE PRESENT CASE, WE FIND WE HAVE NO ALTERNATIVE BUT TO PRE SUME THAT THE ASSESSEE MAY NOT BE SERIOUS IN PURSUING THE APPEAL FILED. SUPPORT IS FROM THE ORDER OF THE ITAT DELHI BENCHES IN THE CASE OF CIT V S MULTIPLAN INDIA PVT. LTD. (1991) 38 ITD 320 AND THE DECISION OF HON'BLE MAD HYA PRADESH HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF LATE SHRI TUKOJI RAO HOLKAR VS WEALTH TAX COMMISSIONER 223 ITR 480 (MP) ETC. 2. BEFORE PARTING, IT IS APPROPRIATE TO ADD THAT IN THE EV ENTUALITY THE ASSESSEE IS ABLE TO SHOW THAT THERE WAS A REASONABLE C AUSE FOR NON- REPRESENTATION ON THE DATE OF HEARING, IT WOULD BE AT LIBERTY TO PRAY FO R A ITA 1004/CHD/2016 A.Y. 2010-11 PAGE 2 OF 2 RECALL OF THIS ORDER BY MAKING AN APPROPRIATE PRAYER. SAID ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT AT THE TIME OF HEARING ITSELF. 3. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 02.08.2017. SD/- SD/- ( B.R.R.KUMAR) (DIV A SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER POONAM COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. THE DR ASSTT. REGISTRAR ITAT,CHANDIGARH.