Smt. Beant Kaur, Ludhiana V. ITO, W-VI(I), Ludhiana

ITA 1154/CHANDI/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 126 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5320 (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.1154/CHD/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 20 10-11 SMT. BEANT KAUR, VS THE ITO, 515/II, B-36, HOUSE FED FLATS, WARD VI(1), PAKHOWAL ROAD, LUDHIANA. LUDHIANA. PAN NO. APMPK2966G (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. TILL DAT E THE DEFECTS HAVE REMAINED NOT CURED. IT IS SEEN THAT THE APPEAL CAME UP FOR HEARING ON VARIOUS DATES I.E. ON 30/11/2017 ON WHICH DATE IT W AS ADJOURNED ON THE REQUEST OF THE ASSESSEE AND AGAIN ON 10 TH OF DECEMBER 2017, ON WHICH DATE ALSO IT WAS ADJOURNED ON THE REQUEST OF THE ASSESSE E. ACCORDINGLY IN THE PECULIAR FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES WHERE THE DEFECT REMA INS NOT CURED AND THE ASSESSEE CONSISTENTLY SEEKING TIME AND HAS NOT CARED TO ADDRESS THE SAME NOR CARED TO PUT AN APPLICATION ON THE DATE OF HEARI NG. IT CAN BE SAFELY PRESUMED THAT THE ASSESSEE MAY NOT BE SERIOUS IN PU RSUING THE APPEAL FILED. SUPPORT IS FROM THE ORDER OF THE ITAT DELHI BENCHES IN TH E CASE 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 TUKO JI RAO HOLKAR VS WEALTH TAX COMMISSIONER 223 ITR 480 (MP) ETC. ITA 1154/CHD/2017 A.Y. 2010-11 PAGE 2 OF 2 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 PRONOUN CED 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.