M/s Nand Kishore & Sons (HUF), Ludhiana V. ITO, W-3(4), Ludhiana

ITA 1035/CHANDI/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 116 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9911 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 9 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-05-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Appeal Filed On: 02-08-2018
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: HARJINDER SINGH
• Section: 2

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH SMC CHANDIGARH !', # BEFORE: SMT. DIVA SINGH, JM !./ ITA NO. 1035/CHD/2018 #& ' (' / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2015-16 M/S NAND KISHORE & SONS(HUF), FLAT NO. 3, BLOCK NO. DJ, RVP, OMAXE ROYAL RESIDENCY, DAAD, LUDHIANA. VS THE ITO, WARD 3(4), LUDHIANA. PAN NO. AAIHN0587M APPELLANT RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : NONE REVENUE BY : SHRI HARJINDER SINGH, ADDL. CIT ! '# DATE OF HEARING : 23.05.2019 $%&'()# D ATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 30.05.2019 )*/ ORDER THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ASSAILING THE CORRECTNESS OF THE ORDER DATED 30.05.2018 OF CIT(A) -1, LUDHIANA PERTAINING TO 2015-16 ASSESSMENT YEAR. 2. HOWEVER, AT THE TIME OF HEARING, NO ONE WAS PRES ENT ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. THE APPEAL WAS PASSED OVER. IN THE SECO ND ROUND ALSO, THE POSITION REMAINED THE SAME. THE RECORD SHOWS THAT THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ON 02.08.2018 WHICH CAME UP FOR HEARING ON 27.12.2018. HOWEVER, IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT ON T HE SAID DATE AND THE DATE THEREAFTER, THE BENCH WAS NOT FUNCTIONING, THE APPE AL EFFECTIVELY CAME UP FOR HEARING ON 14.03.2019. ON THE SAID DATE, DESPITE I SSUANCE OF NOTICE, NONE WAS PRESENT ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. IN ORDER TO ENABLE THE ASSESSEE TO PARTICIPATE, IT WAS ADJOURNED. ACCORDINGLY, NOTICE WAS ISSUED ON 11.04.2019 FIXING THE APPEAL FOR HEARING ON 21.05.2019. ON TH E SAID DATE ALSO, AS NOTED, THE ASSESSEE REMAINED UNREPRESENTED. IN THE FIRST ROUND AS WELL AS IN ITA 1035/CHD/2018 A.Y. 2015-16 PAGE 2 OF 2 THE SECOND ROUND. THE APPEAL WAS AGAIN ADJOURNED TO 23.05.2019 I.E. TODAY, THE POSITION REMAINED THE SAME. THE ASSESSEE REMAIN ED UNREPRESENTED. EVEN IN THE SECOND PASS OVER, NO ONE APPEARED ON BE HALF OF THE ASSESSEE. INFACT RIGHT TILL THE PASSING OF THIS ORDER, NO APP LICATION WAS FILED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. THUS, IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, IT CAN BE SAFELY PRESUMED THAT THE ASSESSEE MAY NOT BE SERIOUS IN PURSUING THE APP EAL FILED. SUPPORT IS FROM THE ORDER OF THE ITAT DELHI BENCHES IN THE CAS E OF CIT VS MULTIPLAN INDIA PVT. LTD. (1991) 38 ITD 320 AND THE DECISION OF HON'BLE MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF LATE SHRI TUKOJI RAO HOLKAR VS WEALTH TAX COMMISSIONER 223 ITR 480 (MP) ETC. 3. BEFORE PARTING, IT IS APPROPRIATE TO ADD THAT IN THE EVENTUALITY THE ASSESSEE IS ABLE TO SHOW THAT THERE WAS A REASONABL E CAUSE FOR NON- REPRESENTATION ON THE DATE OF HEARING, IT WOULD BE AT LIBERTY TO PRAY FOR A RECALL OF THIS ORDER BY MAKING AN APPROPRIATE PRAYE R. SAID ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT AT THE TIME OF HEARING ITSELF. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DIS MISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 30.05.2019. SD/- ( !' ) (DIVA SINGH) # / JUDICIAL MEMBER + & % + ,- . -( / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT - 2. / THE RESPONDENT - 3. ! / / CIT 4. ! / ( )/ THE CIT(A) 5. - 01 2 , # 2) , 34516 / DR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 6. 15 7' / GUARD FILE % + ! / BY ORDER, 8 / ASSISTANT REGISTRAR