Raj Kumar Singal, Chandigarh V. ACIT, Chandigarh

ITA 1306/CHANDI/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 115 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4104 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-03-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 16-10-2018
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MANJIT SINGH SR DR

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH B CHANDIGARH !, ' # $ , $ % & ' ( ) , *+ # BEFORE: SMT. DIVA SINGH, JM & SMT.ANNAPURNA GUPTA, AM ./ ITA NO. 1306/CHD/2018 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2014-15 RAJ KUMAR SINGAL, SCO 15, MM, SECTOR 26, CHANDIGARH. VS THE ACIT, CHANDIGARH. ./ PAN NO. : BJMPS3568P / APPELLANT / RESPONDENT ! ' / ASSESSEE BY : NONE # ! ' / REVENUE BY : SHRI MANJIT SINGH, SR.DR $ % ! & / DATE OF HEARING : 26.02.2019 '()* ! & / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 12.03.2019 *,/ ORDER PER DIVA SINGH, JM THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ASSA ILING THE CORRECTNESS OF THE ORDER DATED 30.08.2018 OF CIT-II CHA NDIGARH PERTAINING TO 2014-15 ASSESSMENT YEAR ON VARIOUS GROUNDS. 2. HOWEVER, AT THE TIME OF HEARING, NO ONE WAS PRESENT O N BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. THE APPEAL WAS PASSED OVER TWICE. EVEN IN THE THIRD ROUND, NEITHER THERE WAS AN ADJOURNMENT REQUEST NOR THERE WAS ANY APPEARANCE ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. IT IS SEEN THAT THE NOTICE SENT THROUGH SPEED POST TO THE ASSESSEE HAS COME BACK UNSERVED. THE RECORD SHO WS THAT THE NOTICE HAS BEEN SENT TO THE ADDRESS GIVEN IN COLUMN NO. 10 IN THE MEMO OF APPEAL FILED. ACCORDINGLY, IN THE AFOREMENTIONED PECULIAR FACTS AND CIRCU MSTANCES OF THE PRESENT CASE, WE FIND WE HAVE NO ALTERNATIVE BUT T O PRESUME THAT THE ASSESSEE MAY NOT BE SERIOUS IN PURSUING THE APPEAL FILED A ND THUS DISMISS THE APPEAL FILED FOR NON-REPRESENTATION. SUPPORT IS FROM TH E ORDER OF THE ITAT DELHI BENCHES IN THE CASE OF CIT VS MULTIPLAN INDIA PV T. LTD. (1991) 38 ITD 320 AND THE DECISION OF HON'BLE MADHYA PRADESH H IGH COURT IN THE ITA-1306/CHD/2018 A.Y. 2014-15 PAGE 2 OF 2 CASE OF LATE SHRI TUKOJI RAO HOLKAR VS WEALTH TAX COMMISS IONER 223 ITR 480 (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, THE ASSESSEE WO ULD BE AT LIBERTY TO PRAY FOR A RECALL OF THIS ORDER BY MAKING AN APPROPRIATE PRAYER. SAID ORDER 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 12.03. 2019. SD/- SD/- ( % & ' ( ) ) ( ! ) (ANNAPURNA GUPTA) (DIVA S INGH) *+ #/ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ' #/ JUDICIAL MEMBER POONAM (+ ! ,- .- / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT 3. $ / / CIT 4. $ / ( )/ THE CIT(A) 5. -01 2 , & 2 , 34516 / DR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 6. 15 7% / GUARD FILE (+ $ / BY ORDER, 8 # / ASSISTANT REGISTRAR