Smt.Surinder Kaur, Ludhiana V. ITO, Ludhiana

ITA 1442/CHANDI/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6520 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 11 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 11-12-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 23-12-2016
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC BENCH, CHANDIGARH BEFORE MS. DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 1442/CHD/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007-08 SMT. SURINDER KAUR, VS. THE ITO, C/O M/S SPALL ENTERPRISES, WARD 1(3), K-298-299, PHASE-VIII, LUDHIANA. FOCAL POINT, LUDHIANA. PAN NO. ACYPK8320K (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY : SMT. CHANDER KANTA, SR.DR DATE OF HEARING : 22.11.2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 11.12.2017 ORDER PER DIVA SINGH,JM THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ASSA ILING THE CORRECTNESS OF THE ORDER DATED 20.10.2016 OF CIT(A)-I LUDHIANA PERTAINING TO 2007-08 ASSESSMENT YEAR. 2. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, NO ONE WAS PRESENT ON BEHA LF OF THE ASSESSEE. THE APPEAL WAS PASSED OVER TWICE. DESPITE THIS, ON THE D ATE OF HEARING, NEITHER THE ASSESSEE WAS PRESENT NOR ANY REQUEST FOR ADJOURNMENT WAS PLACED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. THE RECORD FURTHER SHOWS THA T EVEN ON THE LAST DATE OF HEARING I.E. 24.10.2017, THE ASSESSEE REMAINED UNREPRESEN TED. IN THE AFOREMENTIONED PECULIAR FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE PRE SENT CASE, I FIND THAT THERE IS NO ALTERNATIVE BUT TO PRESUME THAT THE A SSESSEE 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 DECISION OF HON'BLE MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COUR T IN THE CASE OF LATE SHRI TUKOJI RAO HOLKAR VS WEALTH TAX COMMISSIONER 2 23 ITR 480 (MP) ETC. ITA 1442/CHD/2016 A.Y. 2007-08 PAGE 2 OF 2 2. BEFORE PARTING, IT IS APPROPRIATE TO ADD THAT IN THE E VENTUALITY 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 LIB ERTY 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. 3. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 11 TH DECEMBER,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.