M/s V.K. Gupta & Accociates, Patiala V. DCIT, CC, Patiala

ITA 1465/CHANDI/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 125 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4083 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 9 month(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 07-08-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 12-10-2017
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MRS MONA MOHANTY
• Keywords: Reasonable cause

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCHB, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SMT. DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.1465/CHD/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09 M/S V.K. GUPTA & ASSOCIATES VS. THE DCIT # 278-279, URBAN ESTATE, PHASE-I CENTRAL CIRCLE, PATIALA PATIALA PAN NO. AADFV7103J (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : NONE REVENUE BY : MRS. MONA MOHANTY DATE OF HEARING : 17/07/2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 07/08/2018 ORDER PER DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, A.M: THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE A GAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A)-5, LUDHIANA DATED 27/07/2017 PERTAINING TO A SSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 ON VARIOUS GROUNDS. HOWEVER, AT THE TIME OF HEARING, NEITHER T HE ASSESSEE WAS PRESENT NOR ANY REQUEST FOR ADJOURNMENT HAS BEEN PLACED ON RECORD. 2. THE RECORD SHOWS THAT THE APPEAL WAS FILED BY T HE ASSESSEE ON 12/10/2017. THE APPEAL CAME UP FOR HEARING BEFORE T HE BENCH TODAY I.E 17/07/2018. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. THE NOTICE OF HEARING WAS SENT TO THE ASSESSEE, BUT THERE WAS NO COMPLIAN CE ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. EVEN NO APPLICATION SEEKING ADJOURNMENT WAS FILED. IT CA N 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 MULTIP LAN INDIA PVT. LTD. (1991) 38 ITD 320 AND THE DECISION OF HON'BLE MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COU RT 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 TH E EVENTUALITY THE ASSESSEE IS ABLE TO SHOW THAT THERE WAS A REASONABLE CAUSE FOR NON-R EPRESENTATION ON THE DATE OF 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 DISMIS SED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT. SD/- SD/- (DIVA SINGH) (DR. B.R.R. KUMAR) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED : 07/08/2018 AG COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. THE DR