Sh. Sumesh Seghal, Delhi V. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 1178/DEL/2013

• Counselvise Citation: 117820114 RSA 2013
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 2 month(s) 4 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 05-05-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC 1
• Next Hearing Date: 30-05-2016
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 01-03-2013
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: GAGAN SOOD
• Keywords: Reasonable cause

Judgement Text

ITA NO.1178, 1179.DEL.13 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: SMC NEW DELHI BEFORE SMT DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A .NOS.-1178 & 1179 DEL/2013 (ASSESSMENT YEAR-2005-06) SUMESH SEHGAL D-29, TULSI APARTMENT, SECTOR-14, ROHINI DELHI PAN: ANWPS4110N (APPELLANT) VS ITO WARD 21 (4) NEW DELHI (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: NONE RESPONDENT BY: SH. GAGAN SOOD, SR. DR ORDER PER DIVA SINGH, JM THESE ARE TWO APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST SEPARATE ORDER DATED 31/10/2012 OF CIT(A) XXII, PERTAINING TO 2005-06 AS SESSMENT YEAR WHEREIN THE PENALTY IMPOSED U/S 271(1)(B) AND 271(1)(C) BY THE AO HAS BEEN CONFIRMED IN APPEAL. NO ONE WAS PRESENT ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESS EE WHEN THE APPEALS WERE CALLED OUT. ACCORDINGLY THEY WERE PASSED OVER. IN THE SE COND ROUND ALSO, NEITHER THE ASSESSEE WAS PRESENT NOR ANY REQUEST FOR ADJOURNMEN T WAS PLACED BEFORE THE BENCH. THE RECORD SHOWS THAT NOTICE FOR THE APPEALS HAD BE EN SENT TO THE ASSESSEE ON 21/3/2014. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, IT CAN BE SAFELY PRESUME THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT SERIOUS IN PURSUING THE APPEALS. THE LAW ASSISTS T HOSE WHO ARE VIGILANT AND THE ASSESSEES NON-REPRESENTATION IN THE BACKGROUND DIS CUSSED ABOVE WHEREIN NEITHER ANY ADJOURNMENT HAS BEEN MOVED NOR ANY ONE IS PRESE NT ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE DESPITE NOTICE IT CLEARLY DEMONSTRATES THAT THE ASS ESSEE IS NOT SERIOUS IN PURSUING THE PRESENT APPEALS. ACCORDINGLY, THE APPEALS ARE DIS MISSED IN LIMINE. SUPPORT IS ITA NO.1178, 1179.DEL.13 2 DERIVED FROM THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNALS IN COMMISSI ONER OF INCOME-TAX VS. MULTI PLAN INDIA (P) LTD.; 38 ITD 320 (DEL) AND ESTATE OF LATE TUKOJIRAO HOLKAR VS. CWT: 223 ITR 480 (M.P). IN THE SAID CASE WHILE DIS MISSING THE REFERENCE MADE AT THE INSTANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IN DEFAULT THE HONBLE COURT MADE FOLLOWING OBSERVATIONS IN THEIR ORDER- IF THE PARTY, AT WHOSE INSTANCE THE REFERENCE IS M ADE, FAILS TO APPEAR AT THE HEARING, OR FAILS IN TAKING STEPS FOR PREPARATI ON OF THE PAPER BOOKS SO AS TO ENABLE HEARING OF THE REFERENCE, THE COURT IS NOT BOUND TO ANSWER THE REFERENCE. 2. IT MAY BE APPROPRIATE TO ADD THAT IN CASE THE ASSES SEE IS ABLE TO SHOW THAT THERE WAS A REASONABLE CAUSE FOR NON-REPRESENTATION ON THE DATE OF HEARING THEN IT MAY IF SO ADVISED PRAY FOR A RECALL OF THIS ORDER A ND REQUEST FOR A DECISION ON MERITS. 3. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMI SSED IN LIMINE. THE ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 5TH OF MAY 2014. SD/- (DIVA SINGH) JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 05/05/2014 *R. NAHEED* COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI ITA NO.1178, 1179.DEL.13 3