Patiala Improvement Trust, Patiala V. DCIT (Exemptions), C-I, Chandigarh

ITA 1375/CHANDI/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 126 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5150 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-03-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 19-09-2017
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ASHISH ABROL

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH B, CHANDIGARH BEFORE MS. DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MS. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 1375/CHD/2 017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2013-14 PATIALA IMPROVEMENT TRUST, VS. THE DCIT (EXE MPTION), CHHOTI BARADARI, CIRCLE-1, PATIALA. CHANDIGARH. PAN NO. : (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY : SHRI ASHISH ABROL,CIT-DR DATE OF HEARING : 22.02.2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 20.03.2018 ORDER PER DIVA SINGH,JM THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ASSAILIN G THE CORRECTNESS OF THE ORDER DATED 17.02.2017 OF LD. CIT(APPE ALS) PATIALA PERTAINING TO 2013-14 ASSESSMENT YEARS 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 TH E THIRD ROUND, NEITHER THE ASSESSEE WAS PRESENT NOR ANY REQUEST FOR ADJOURN MENT WAS PLACED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. THE RECORD SHOWS THAT THE REGIS TRY HAS POINTED OUT VARIOUS DEFECTS IN THE APPEAL FILED ON 19.09.2017 ITSELF. A P ERUSAL OF THE SAME SHOWS THAT ONE OF THE DEFECTS IS THAT THE APPEAL IS DELAY ED BY 29 DAYS. THE DEFECTS REMAIN UNADDRESSED TILL DATE. THE RECORD SHOWS TH AT THE APPEAL HAD COME UP FOR HEARING ON 15.01.2018. ON THE SAID DATE THE APPEAL WAS ADJOURNED ON THE WRITTEN REQUEST OF ASSESSEE'S COUNSE L AS NOTED BY THE COORDINATE BENCH. IT IS FURTHER SEEN THAT THE DEFECTS T ILL DATE HAVE NOT BEEN CURED. IN THESE PECULIAR FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY EFFORT ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE TO CURE THE DEFECTS AND E XPLAIN THE DELAY, IT CAN BE SAFELY PRESUMED THAT THE ASSESSEE MAY NOT BE SERIOUS IN PURSUING THE APPEAL FILED. SUPPORT IS FROM THE ORDER OF THE ITAT DELHI BENCHES IN THE CASE OF CIT VS MULTIPLAN INDIA PVT. LTD. (1991) 38 ITD 320 AND THE DECIS ION OF HON'BLE ITA 1375/CHD/2017 A.Y. 2013-14 PAGE 2 OF 2 MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF LATE SHRI TU KOJI RAO HOLKAR VS WEALTH TAX COMMISSIONER 223 ITR 480 (MP) ETC. 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 AND GIVING AN UNDERTAKING TO CURE THE DEFECT POINTED OUT BY THE REGISTRY. 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 20.03. 2018. SD/- SD/- (ANNAPURNA GUPTA) (DIVA SI NGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER 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.