Smt. Samriddhi Jain, Ludhiana V. ITO, W-7(2), Ludhiana

ITA 1478/CHANDI/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 116 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9919 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-05-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Appeal Filed On: 30-11-2018
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: N.D.GUPTA

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BE NCH SMC CHANDIGARH !', # BEFORE: SMT. DIVA SINGH, JM ./ ITA NO. 1478/CHD/2018 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2015-16 SMT. SAMRIDHI JAIN, # 313/1 NEAR BHUN BABA MANDIR, DR. SHAM SINGH ROAD, LUDHIANA. VS THE ITO, WARD 7(2), LUDHIANA. ./ PAN NO. : ASXPJ7024N / APPELLANT / RESPONDENT ! ' / ASSESSEE BY : SHRI VIBHOR GARG # ! ' / REVENUE BY : SHRI N.D.GUPTA, JCIT $ % ! & / DATE OF HEARING : 22.05.2019 '()* ! & / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 30.05. 2019 $%/ ORDER THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ASSAILING THE CORRECTNESS OF THE ORDER DATED 2.10.2018 OF CIT(A)- 3, LUDHIANA PERTAINING TO 2015-16 ASSESSMENT YEAR ON VARIOUS GROUNDS. 2. THE LD. AR SHRI VIBHOR GARG, AT THE TIME OF HEAR ING MADE AN ORAL REQUEST SEEKING TIME. REFERRING TO THE RECORD, IT WAS POIN TED OUT THAT THE APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ON 30.11.2018 WHICH HAS COME UP FOR HEARING ON 26.03.2019. ON THE SAID DATE, THE APPEAL WAS ADJOUR NED ON THE WRITTEN REQUEST OF THE ASSESSEE STATING THAT PAPER BOOK WAS REQUIRE D TO BE FILED. THE RECORD SHOWS THAT TIME HAS BEEN GRANTED. THE RECORD SHOWS THAT THE TWO MONTHS TIME MADE AVAILABLE HAS NOT BEEN UTILIZED FAIRLY AS TILL DATE NO PAPER BOOK HAS BEEN FILED. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE ORAL REQUEST FOR TIME WAS REQUIRED TO BE EXPLAINED. THE LD. AR STATED THAT TIME TO FILE PAP ER BOOK WAS REQUIRED. SINCE TIME FOR THE SAID PURPOSE HAD ALREADY BEEN GRANTED AND TILL DATE NO PAPER BOOK HAS BEEN FILED. THE LD. AR WAS REQUIRED TO ADDRESS THE CORRECTNESS OF THE ITA 1478/CHD/2018 A.Y. 2015-16 PAGE 2 OF 2 REQUEST FOR TIME. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY EXPLANATIO N, IT WAS DEEMED APPROPRIATE TO REJECT THE ORAL REQUEST FOR TIME AS ADMITTEDLY I N THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE, IT WAS EVIDENT THAT NECESSARY PAPERS HAVE NOT BEEN MADE AVAILABLE AS THE ASSESSEE MAY NOT BE SERIOUS IN PURSUING THE APPEAL FILED. ACCORDINGLY, THE APPEAL DESERVES TO BE DISMISSED IN LIMINE. 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 COURT IN THE CASE OF LATE SHRI TUKOJI RAO HOLKAR VS WEALTH TAX COMMISSIO NER 223 ITR 480 (MP) ETC. 3. BEFORE PARTING, IT IS APPROPRIATE TO ADD THAT IN THE EVENTUALITY THE ASSESSEE IS ABLE TO SHOW THAT THERE WAS A REASONABL E CAUSE FOR NOT FILING THE PAPER BOOK ON OR BEFORE THE DATE OF HEARING SO AS T O MAKE A PROPER AND EFFECTIVE REPRESENTATION, IT WOULD BE AT LIBERTY TO PRAY FOR A RECALL OF THIS ORDER BY MAKING AN APPROPRIATE PRAYER. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DIS MISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 30 TH MAY,2019. SD/- ( !' ) (DIVA SINGH) # / JUDICIAL MEMBER ' ( (+ ! ,- .- / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT - 2. / THE RESPONDENT - 3. $ / / CIT 4. $ / ( )/ THE CIT(A) 5. -01 2 , & 2 , 34516 / DR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 6. 15 7% / GUARD FILE (+ $ / BY ORDER, 8 # / ASSISTANT REGISTRAR