M/s Sunrise Industries, Solan V. DCIT, Circle, Parwanoo

ITA 1181/CHANDI/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6609 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-11-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 28-07-2017
• 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. 1181/CHD/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2013-14 M/S SUNRISE INDUSTRIES, VS. THE DCIT, VILLAGE-BALYANA, P.O.KASAULI, CIRCLE, DISTT. SOLAN (HP). PARWANOO. PAN :ABFFS9767G (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY : SHRI MANJIT SINGH, SR.DR DATE OF HEARING : 31.10.2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 28.11. 2017 ORDER THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ASS AILING THE CORRECTNESS OF THE ORDER DATED 23.05.2017 OF LD. CIT (APP EALS) SHIMLA PERTAINING TO 2013-14 ASSESSMENT YEAR. 2. HOWEVER, AT THE TIME OF HEARING, NO ONE WAS PRESENT O N BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. DESPITE A PASS OVER TWICE, THE ASSESSEE REM AINED UNREPRESENTED AS NEITHER ANY ADJOURNMENT WAS PLACED ON RECORD NOR A NYONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. THE RECORD ALSO SHOWS THAT NOT ICE DATED 12.10.2017 FOR THE SPECIFIC DATE OF HEARING HAS BEEN SENT TO THE ASS ESSEE AT THE LOCAL ADDRESS MENTIONED BY THE ASSESSEE IN COLUMN NO. 10 OF TH E MEMO OF APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WHICH HAS NOT COME BACK UNSERVED. ACCORDINGLY, SERVICE IS DEEMED TO BE COMPLETE. 3. IN THE PECULIAR FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, IT CAN BE SAFELY PRESUMED THAT THE ASSESSEE MAY NOT BE SERIOUS IN PURS UING 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. 4. 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 LIBERTY TO P RAY FOR A ITA 1181/CHD/2017 A.Y. 2013-14 PAGE 2 OF 2 RECALL OF THIS ORDER BY MAKING AN APPROPRIATE PRAYER. SA ID ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT AT THE TIME OF HEARING ITSELF. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 28.11. 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.