Bawa Brothers, Shahabad V. ITO, Kurukshetra

ITA 1050/CHANDI/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6686 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-10-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 04-10-2016
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MANJIT SINGH

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCHES, SMC, CHANDIGARH BEFORE MS. DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO 1050/CHD/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007-08 M/S BAWA BROTHERS, VS. THE ITO, SHOP NO.41, WARD-2, NEW GRAIN MARKET, KURUKSHETRA. SHAHABAD(MARKANDA), KURUKSHETRA. PAN NO. AAFFB6794H (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY : SHRI MANJIT SINGH DATE OF HEARING : 08.08.2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 30.10.2017 ORDER THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ASSA ILING THE CORRECTNESS OF THE ORDER DATED 20.07.2016 OF LD. CIT (APPE ALS) KARNAL PERTAINING TO 2007-08 ASSESSMENT YEAR. 2. HOWEVER, AT THE TIME OF HEARING, NO ONE WAS PRESENT O N BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. THE APPEAL WAS PASSED OVER. IN THE SECOND ROUND ALSO, THE POSITION REMAINED THE SAME. THE RECORD SHOWS THAT THE APPEAL FILE D ON 04.10.2016 WAS FIRST FIXED FOR HEARING ON 07.11.2016. THEREAFTER, APAR T FROM THE TWO DATES ON WHICH THE BENCH WAS NOT FUNCTIONAL AND ON ONE DATE WHEN TIME WAS SOUGHT BY THE DEPARTMENT, ON EVERY OTHER DATE I.E. 07.11 .2016, 01.03.2017 AND 12.07.2017, IT WAS ADJOURNED ON THE REQUEST OF THE A SSESSEE. DESPITE THIS, ON THE DATE OF HEARING THE ASSESSEE HAS REMAINED U NREPRESENTED. ACCORDINGLY, IN THE PECULIAR FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE PRESENT CASE, WHERE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT(A) IN THE PRESENT PR OCEEDINGS IS IN PURSUANCE TO THE SET ASIDE PROCEEDINGS DIRECTED BY THE ITAT BY ITS ORDER DATED 19.09.20111 IN ITA 744/CHD/2011 WHERE ALSO THE ASSESSEE REMAINED UNREPRESENTED. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, IT CAN BE SAFELY PRESUMED THAT THE ASSESSEE MAY NOT BE SERIOUS IN PURSUING THE APPEAL AN Y FURTHER. SUPPORT IS FROM THE ORDER OF THE ITAT DELHI BENCHES IN THE CASE O F CIT VS MULTIPLAN INDIA PVT. LTD. (1991) 38 ITD 320 AND THE DECISION OF HON'BLE MA DHYA PRADESH HIGH ITA 1050/CHD/2016 A.Y 2007-08 PAGE 2 OF 2 COURT IN THE CASE OF LATE SHRI TUKOJI RAO HOLKAR VS WEALT H TAX COMMISSIONER 223 ITR 480 (MP) ETC. 3. BEFORE PARTING, IT IS APPROPRIATE TO ADD THAT IN THE E VENTUALITY 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 LIBE RTY TO PRAY FOR A RECALL OF THIS ORDER BY MAKING AN APPROPRIATE PRAYER. SAID ORDE R WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT AT THE TIME OF HEARING ITSELF. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 30 TH OCTOBER,2017. SD/- (DIVA SINGH) 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.