Sh. Harvinder Singh, Yamunanagar V. ITO, W-3, Yamunanagar

ITA 1315/CHANDI/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 126 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5284 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 07-02-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 01-09-2017
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH A, CHANDIGARH BEFORE MS. DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MS. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 1315/CHD/2 017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 SHRI HARVINDER SINGH, VS THE ITO, S/O SHRI RANJIT SINGH, WARD 3, VILLAGE RATAULI, YAMUNA NAGAR. DISTT. YAMUNA NAGAR. PAN NO. :CCVPS2697L (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY : SMT. CHANDER KANTA, SR.DR DATE OF HEARING : 08.01.2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 07.02. 2018 ORDER PER DIVA SINGH,JM THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ASSAILIN G THE CORRECTNESS OF THE ORDER DATED 13/10/2016 OF CIT(A) P ANCHKULA PERTAINING TO 2007 08 ASSESSMENT YEAR ON VARIOUS GROUNDS. HOWEVER AT THE TIME OF HEARING NO ONE WAS PRESENT ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. TH E APPEAL WAS PASSED OVER. IN THE SECOND ROUND ALSO NO ONE WAS PRESENT ON BEHALF THE ASSESSEE NOR ANY REQUEST FOR ADJOURNMENT HAS BEEN PLACED BEFORE THE BENCH. 2. THE RECORD SHOWS THAT THE PRESENT APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ON 01/09/2017 IS DEFECTIVE IN AS MUCH AS THE REGISTRY HAS P OINTED OUT THAT THE ORIGINAL ORDER OF THE CIT(A) HAS NOT BEEN FILED AND THE AP PEAL IS TIME BARRED BY 231 DAYS. DEFECT NOTICE TO THIS EFFECT HAS BEEN ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE. DESPITE THIS FACT THE DEFECTS REMAIN NOT CURED. IT IS FURTHER SEEN THAT THE IN THE PRESENT PROCEEDINGS, ASSESSEE HAS NOT CARED TO EXECUT E ANY POWER OF ATTORNEY IN FAVOUR OF ANY COUNSEL. ACCORDINGLY IN THESE PECULIAR FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES IT CAN BE SAFELY PRESUMED THAT THE ASSES SEE MAY NOT BE SERIOUS IN PURSUING THE APPEAL FILED. ACCORDINGLY THE APPEAL OF THE A SSESSEE IS DISMISSED AS DEFECTIVE INLIMNI. SUPPORT IS FROM THE ORDER OF THE ITAT DELHI BENCHES IN THE CASE OF CIT VS MULTIPLAN INDIA PVT. LTD. (199 1) 38 ITD 320 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. 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, THE ASSESSEE WO ULD BE AT LIBERTY TO PRAY FOR A RECALL OF THIS ORDER BY MAKING AN APPROPRIATE PRAYER AND AN UNDERTAKING TO CURE THE DEFECTS. 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 07/02/2018. SD/- SD/- (ANNAPURNA GUPTA) (DIVA SI NGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER POONAM/RKK COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. THE DR ASSTT. REGISTRAR ITAT,CHANDIGARH. DATE 1. DRAFT DICTATED ON PS 2. DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR 25.01.2018/06.02.2018 PS 3. DRAFT PROPOSED & PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER JM/AM 4. DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED BY SECOND MEMBER. JM/AM 5. APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.PS/PS .01.201 8 PS/PS 6. KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT ON PS 7. FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK .01.2018 PS 8. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE AR 9. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK. 10. DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER.