Pal Singh, Mohali V. ITO, Chandigarh

ITA 1201/CHANDI/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7013 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 10 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 01-08-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 21-11-2016
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S K MITTAL
• Keywords: Condonation of delay

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCHES, SMC, CHANDIGARH BEFORE MS. DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 1201/CHD/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 SHRI PAL SINGH, VS. THE ITO, R/O H.NO. 132, WARD 3(4), SHIVALIK VIHAR, CHANDIGARH. NAYA GAON, DISTT.MOHALI. PAN NO. BBXPS0977B (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY : SHRI S.K.MITTAL, SR.DR DATE OF HEARING : 07.06.2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 01.08.2017 ORDER THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ASSAILIN G THE CORRECTNESS OF THE ORDER DATED 23.08.2016 OF CIT (APPEALS )-2, AMRITSAR CAMP AT CHANDIGARH. HOWEVER, AT THE TIME OF HEARING, AN ADJOU RNMENT WAS MOVED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. SINCE NO ONE WAS PRESENT IN S UPPORT THEREOF, THE APPEAL WAS PASSED OVER. IN THE SECOND ROUND ALSO, THE POSITION REMAINED THE SAME. THE RECORD FURTHER SHOWS THAT ON EACH OF THE DAT ES, WHEN THE APPEAL CAME UP FOR HEARING, THE ASSESSEE REMAINED UNREPRESENTE D. FURTHER, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS SHOWN TO BE DELAYED BY THREE DAYS. NO APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY HAS BEEN PLACED ON RECORD ON BE HALF OF THE ASSESSEE. DEFECT NOTICE HAS BEEN ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE ON 21.11.2 016 TO THE PERSON WHO HANDED OVER THE APPEAL ITSELF WHEREIN VARIOUS DEFECTS HAVE BEEN POINTED BY THE REGISTRY INCLUDING THE DEFECT THAT THE APPEAL IS TIME BARRED. 2. IN THE AFOREMENTIONED PECULIAR FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES , GRANT OF TIME WOULD BE A WASTED EXERCISE AS THE ASSESSEE MAY NOT B E SERIOUS IN PURSUING THE APPEAL FILED. SUPPORT IS FROM THE ORDER OF THE ITAT DE LHI BENCHES IN THE CASE OF CIT VS MULTIPLAN INDIA PVT. LTD. (1991) 38 ITD 32 0 AND THE DECISION OF HON'BLE MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF LATE SHRI TUKOJI RAO HOLKAR VS WEALTH TAX COMMISSIONER 223 ITR 480 (MP) ETC. ITA 1201/CHD/2016 A.Y. 2009-10 PAGE 2 OF 2 3. BEFORE PARTING, IT IS APPROPRIATE TO ADD THAT IN THE EV ENTUALITY 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 01.08. 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.