M/s Shanti Sales India Pvt. Ltd., Ludhiana V. DCIT, C-III, Ludhiana

ITA 1584/CHANDI/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 119 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2371 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 11 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-10-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 17-11-2017
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MANJIT SINGH SR DR

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH,CHANDIGARH , ! ' # . %.. . & , '( ' BEFORE: SMT. DIVA SINGH, JM & DR. B.R.R.KUMAR, AM ./ ITA NO. 1584/CHD/2017 / A.Y : 2011-12 M/S SHANTI SALES INDIA P.LTD., 738/7A/2, BHAI MANNA SINGH NAGAR, LUDHIANA. VS THE DCIT, CIRCLE-III, LUDHIANA. ./ PAN NO: AACCS3196E / APPELLANT / RESPONDENT ! ' / ASSESSEE BY : NONE # ! ' / REVENUE BY : SHRI MANJIT SINGH, SR.DR $ % ! &/ DATE OF HEARING : 09.10.2018 '()* ! &/ D ATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 31.10.2018 ')/ ORDER THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ASSA ILING THE CORRECTNESS OF THE ORDER DATED 18.09.2017 OF CIT(A)-I L UDHIANA PERTAINING TO 2011-12 ASSESSMENT YEAR. 2. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, NO ONE WAS PRESENT ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE AND ADJOURNMENT APPLICATION WAS PLACED ON BEHALF OF THE R EVENUE SEEKING TIME. HOWEVER, THE ADJOURNMENT APPLICATION WAS REJECTED AND THE APPEAL WAS PASSED OVER. IN THE SECOND ROUND ALSO, THE ASSESS EE REMAINED UNREPRESENTED. IT IS SEEN THAT NOTICE FOR THE SPECIFIC DATE OF HEARING HAS BEEN SENT TO THE ASSESSEE ON 23.08.2018. IT IS FURTHER SEEN FROM THE RECORD THAT ON THE EARLIER DATE OF HEARING I.E. 29.05.2018, THE APPE AL WAS ADJOURNED ON THE WRITTEN REQUEST OF THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, ON T HE SPECIFIC DATE OF HEARING, THERE IS NO SUCH REQUEST OF THE ASSESSEE. I N THE ABSENCE OF ANY REQUEST OR REPRESENTATION, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESS EE IS DISMISSED FOR NON-REPRESENTATION AS IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, IT CAN BE SA FELY 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 MULTIPLAN INDIA PVT. LTD. (1991) 38 ITD 320 AND THE DECISION OF HON'B LE MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF LATE SHRI TUKOJI RAO H OLKAR VS WEALTH TAX COMMISSIONER 223 ITR 480 (MP) ETC. ITA 772/CHD/2018 A.Y.2009-10 PAGE 2 OF 2 3. BEFORE PARTING, IT IS APPROPRIATE TO ADD THAT IN THE EVE NTUALITY 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 LIBE RTY 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. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 31.10.2018. SD/- SD/- ( . %.. . & ) ( ) (DR. B.R.R. KUMAR) (DIVA SINGH) '( '/ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ! '/ JUDICIAL MEMBER + , (+ ! ,- .- / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT - 2. / THE RESPONDENT - 3. $ / / CIT 4. $ / ()/ THE CIT(A) 5. -23 4, & 4, 67839/ DR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 6. 38 :%/ GUARD FILE (+ $ / BY ORDER, ; #/ ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT,CHANDIGARH.