Dutchply Industries Ltd., Chandigarh V. ACIT, C-4(1), Chandigarh

ITA 1578/CHANDI/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 117 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6634 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 5 month(s) 16 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 03-05-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 17-11-2017
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: CHANDRAKANTA SR DR
• Keywords: Reasonable cause

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BEN CH A, CHANDIGARH , . '.., # $, %& BEFORE: SH. SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER & DR. B.R. R. KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 1578/CHD/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2013-14 DUTCHPLY INDUSTRIES LTD. # 319, SECTOR-35A CHANDIGARH THE ACIT CIRCLE 4(1) CHANDIGARH PAN NO: AADCD0266H APPELLANT RESPONDENT !' ASSESSEE BY : NONE #!' REVENUE BY : SMT. CHANDRAKANTA, SR. DR $ %! & DATE OF HEARING : 13/02/2019 '()*! & DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 03/05/2019 %'/ ORDER PER DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, A.M THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE A SSAILING THE CORRECTNESS OF THE ORDER DATED 15/09/2017 OF CIT (APPEALS)-2, CHAN DIGARH PERTAINING TO 2013-14 ASSESSMENT YEAR. HOWEVER, AT THE TIME OF HEARING, NO ONE WAS PRESENT ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. THE APPEAL WAS PASSED OVER. IN THE SECO ND ROUND ALSO, NEITHER THE ASSESSEE WAS PRESENT NOR ANY REQUEST FOR ADJOURNMENT HAS BEE N PLACED ON RECORD. 2. THE RECORD SHOWS THAT THE APPEAL WAS FILED BY TH E ASSESSEE ON 17/11/2017 AND IT CAME UP FOR HEARING FOR THE FIRST TIME ON 09/04/201 8. ON THE SAID DATE, IT WAS ADJOURNED ON THE REQUEST OF THE COMPANY EMPLOYEE SHRI ANUP SI NGH TO 23.05.2018. ON THE NEXT DATE OF HEARING, ADJOURNMENT WAS SOUGHT BY THE ASSE SSEES COUNSEL AND APPEAL WAS LISTED FOR HEARING ON 19/11/2018. ON 12/02/2019 TH E DOMESTIC HELP OF THE DIRECTOR BY NAME SHRI RATNESH APPEARED AND CASE WAS FIXED FOR HEARING BEFORE THE BENCH ON 13/02/2019. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. EVEN NO APPLICATION SEEKING ADJOURNMENT WAS FILED. IT CAN B E SAFELY PRESUMED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT SERIOUS IN PURSUING THE APPEAL FILED. SUPPOR T 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 2 OF HON'BLE MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF LATE SHRI TUKOJI RAO HOLKAR VS WEALTH TAX COMMISSIONER 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 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. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DIS MISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT. SD/- SD/- . '.., # $, (SANJAY GARG ) ( DR. B.R.R. KUM AR, AM) / JUDICIAL MEMBER %& / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER 03/05/2019 (+! ,-.- COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. $ / CIT 4. $ / 01 THE CIT(A) 5. -2 45&456789 DR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 6. 8:% GUARD FILE (+ $ BY ORDER, ; # ASSISTANT REGISTRAR