Sh. Gurpreet Singh Grewal, Ludhiana V. ITO, W-VI(I), Ludhiana

ITA 1153/CHANDI/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 126 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5307 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-01-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 18-07-2017
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: CHANDER KANTASR

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCHES, SMC, CHANDIGARH BEFORE MS. DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.1153/CHD/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 20 10-11 SHRI GURPREET SINGH GREWAL, VS THE ITO, 515/II, B-36, HOUSE FED FLATS, WARD VI(1), PAKHOWAL ROAD, LUDHIANA. LUDHIANA. PAN NO. AGUPG6530D (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY : SMT. CHANDER KANTA,SR.DR DATE OF HEARING : 09.01.2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 25.01.2018 ORDER THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE A SSAILING THE CORRECTNESS OF THE ORDER DATED 19/05/2017 OF CIT(A) -4 LUDHIANA PERTAINING TO 2010-11 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 SECON D ROUND ALSO NEITHER THE ASSESSEE WAS PRESENT NOR ANY REQUEST FOR ADJOURNMEN T WAS PLACED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. IT IS FURTHER SEEN THAT THE REGISTRY HAS POINTED OUT DEFECTS IN THE FILING OF THE PRESENT APPEAL ON 18/07/2017 WHICH T ILL DATE HAVE REMAINED NOT CURED. IT IS FURTHER SEEN THAT THE APP EAL CAME UP FOR HEARING ON VARIOUS DATES I.E. ON 30/11/2017 ON WHICH DATE I T WAS ADJOURNED ON THE REQUEST OF THE ASSESSEE AND AGAIN ON 10/12/2017 AGA IN IT WAS ADJOURNED ON THE REQUEST OF THE ASSESSEE. 3. ACCORDINGLY IN THE PECULIAR FACTS AND CIRCUMSTA NCES WHERE THE DEFECT REMAINS NOT CURED AND THE ASSESSEE CONSISTENTLY SEE KING TIME AND HAS NOT CARED TO ADDRESS THE SAME NOR CARED TO PUT AN APPLIC ATION. IN THESE PECULIAR FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, IT CAN BE SAFELY PRESUMED THAT THE ASSESSEE MAY NOT BE SERIOUS IN PURSUING THE APPEAL FILED. SUPPORT IS FROM T HE ORDER OF THE ITAT DELHI BENCHES IN THE CASE OF CIT VS MULTIPLAN INDIA PVT. LT D. (1991) 38 ITD 320 AND THE DECISION OF HON'BLE MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COUR T IN THE CASE OF ITA 1153/CHD/2017 A.Y. 2010-11 PAGE 2 OF 2 LATE SHRI TUKOJI RAO HOLKAR VS WEALTH TAX COMMISSIONER 223 ITR 48 0 (MP) ETC. 3. BEFORE PARTING, IT IS APPROPRIATE TO ADD THAT IN THE EVE NTUALITY 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 LIBER TY TO PRAY FOR A RECALL OF THIS ORDER BY MAKING AN APPROPRIATE PRAYER AND BY GIVING AN UNDERTAKING TO CURE THE DEFECT. SAID ORDER WAS PRONOU NCED 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 25 TH JANUARY 2018. SD/- (DIVA SINGH) JUDICIAL MEMBER POONAM/AMIT COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. THE DR ASSTT. REGISTRAR ITAT,CHANDIGARH.