Rama Industries, Dehradun V. ITO, Dehradun

ITA 1477/DEL/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 69640 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 09-12-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 09-12-2013
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 12-03-2013
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: NIWASH KUMAR
• Keywords: Reasonable cause

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: SMC NEW DELHI BEFORE SMT DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A .NO.-1477/DEL/ 2013 (ASSESSMENT YEAR-2010-11) RAMA INDUSTRIES FRIENDS ENCLAVE, CHAK SHAH NAGAR DEHRADUN PAN-AAJFR5928F (APPELLANT) VS ITO WARD-2(4) DEHRADUN. (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY SH. NIWASH KUMAR, SR. DR RESPONDENT BY NONE ORDER PER DIVA SINGH, JM THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 16/1/2013 OF CIT(A) 1 DEHRADUN PERTAINING TO 2010-11 ASSESSMENT YEAR ON VARIOUS GROUNDS. HOWEVER, NO ONE WAS PRESENT ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESS EE AT THE TIME OF HEARING. THE APPEAL WAS PASSED OVER. THE POSITION REMAINED THE SAME IN THE SECOND ROUND ALSO AS NEITHER ANYONE WAS PRESENT NOR ANY REQUEST FOR ADJO URNMENT WAS PLACED BEFORE US. THE RECORD SHOWS THAT NOTICE HAS BEEN SENT TO THE A SSESSEE FOR 9 TH DECEMBER 2013 ON 22/10/2013 ON THE ADDRESS GIVEN IN COLUMN NO. 10 OF FORM NO. 36 FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE RECORD FURTHER SHOWS THAT ON AN EARL IER DATE ALSO I.E. 16/9/2013 NO ONE WAS PRESENT ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE, CONSEQUENTLY THE HEARING WAS ADJOURNED. IT IS ALSO SEEN THAT THE DEFECTS POINTED OUT BY THE REGIS TRY IN THE APPEAL HAVE ALSO NOT BE CURED BY THE ASSESSEE. IN THESE PECULIAR FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, IT CAN BE ITA NO. 1477/DEL/13 2 SAFELY PRESUMED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT SERIOUS IN PROSECUTING THE APPEAL. THE LAW ASSISTS THOSE WHO ARE VIGILANT AND THE ASSESSEES N ON-REPRESENTATION IN THE BACKGROUND DISCUSSED CLEARLY DEMONSTRATES THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT SERIOUS IN PURSUING THE PRESENT APPEAL. ACCORDINGLY, WE DISMISS THE APPEAL IN LIM INE. WE FIND SUPPORT FROM THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNALS IN COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TA X VS. MULTI PLAN INDIA (P) LTD.; 38 ITD 320 (DEL) AND ESTATE OF LATE TUKOJIRAO HOLKA R VS. CWT: 223 ITR 480 (M.P). IN THE SAID CASE WHILE DISMISSING THE REFERENCE MAD E AT THE INSTANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IN DEFAULT THE HONBLE COURT MADE FOLLOWING OBSERVATIO NS IN THEIR ORDER- IF THE PARTY, AT WHOSE INSTANCE THE REFERENCE IS M ADE, FAILS TO APPEAR AT THE HEARING, OR FAILS IN TAKING STEPS FOR PREPARATI ON OF THE PAPER BOOKS SO AS TO ENABLE HEARING OF THE REFERENCE, THE COURT IS NOT BOUND TO ANSWER THE REFERENCE. 2. WE HASTEN TO ADD THAT IN CASE THE ASSESSEE IS ABLE TO SHOW THAT THERE WAS A REASONABLE CAUSE FOR NON-REPRESENTATION ON THE DATE OF HEARING THEN IT MAY IF SO ADVISED PRAY FOR A RECALL OF THIS ORDER AND AFTER R EMOVAL OF THE DEFECTS ETC. REQUEST FOR A DECISION ON MERITS. 3. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMIS SED IN LIMINE. THE ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 9 TH DECEMBER 2013. SD/- SD/- (SHAMIM YAHYA) (DIVA SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 09/12/2013 R. NAHEED* COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI ITA NO. 1477/DEL/13 3