M/s A.S.Industries, V. Income Tax Officer, Una

ITA 1410/CHANDI/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 128 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5170 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 21 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 09-05-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 19-12-2016
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Reasonable cause

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCHES, SMC, CHANDIGARH BEFORE MS. DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.1410/CHD/2016 ASS ESSMENT YEAR: 2010-11 M/S A.S.INDUSTRIES, VS. THE ITO, 21, INDUSTRIAL AREA, WARD UNA, GAGRET, DISTT. UNA (HP). DISTT. UNA (HP). PAN NO. : AAMFA6379A (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : : NONE RESPONDENT BY : NONE (APPLICATION) DATE OF HEARING : 05.04.2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 09.05.2017 ORDER THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE A SSAILING THE CORRECTNESS OF THE ORDER DATED 12.09.2016 OF CIT (APPEALS) PALAMPU R PERTAINING TO 2010-11 ASSESSMENT YEAR ON VARIOUS GROUNDS. HOWEVER, AT TH E TIME OF HEARING, NO ONE WAS PRESENT ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. THE APPEAL WAS PASSED OVER TWICE. IN THE THIRD ROUND ALSO, POSITION REMAINED THE SAME. 2. THE RECORD SHOWS THAT NOTICE FOR THE DATE OF HEA RING HAS BEEN SENT TO THE ASSESSEE ON 08.03.2017 AT THE ADDRESS GIVEN IN FORM NO. 10 IN THE MEMO OF APPEAL FILED. IT IS FURTHER SEEN THAT THE APPEAL CAME UP FOR HEARING ON 02.02.2017 AND AGAIN ON 08.03.2017 AND ON BOTH THESE DATES ALSO, THE ASS ESSEE WAS NOT PRESENT. IN THE AFOREMENTIONED PECULIAR FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, GR ANTING ANOTHER OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE WOULD BE A WASTE OF GOVERNMENT TIME AND MA CHINERY AS IT CAN BE SAFELY PRESUMED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT SERIOUS IN PURSUI NG 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 DECISION OF HON'BLE MADHY A PRADESH HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF LATE SHRI TUKOJI RAO HOLKAR VS WEALTH TAX C OMMISSIONER 223 ITR 480 (MP) ETC. IN THE AFOREMENTIONED PECULIAR FACTS AND CIRC UMSTANCES, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED IN LIMINE. 3. BEFORE PARTING, IT IS APPROPRIATE TO ADD THAT IN THE EVENTUALITY THE ASSESSEE IS ABLE TO SHOW THAT THERE WAS A REASONABLE CAUSE FOR NON-REPRESENTATION ON THE DATE OF 2 HEARING, IT WOULD BE AT LIBERTY TO PRAY FOR A RECAL L 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 DIS MISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 9 TH MAY,2017. SD/- (DIVA SINGH) JUDICIAL ME MBER POONAM COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. THE DR ASSTT. REGISTRAR ITAT,CHANDIGARH.