G.M. Enterprises, Delhi V. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 1615/DEL/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 130 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6580 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 10 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 16-02-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC 1
• Next Hearing Date: 22-12-2016
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 28-03-2016
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Reasonable cause

Judgement Text

I.T.A .NO.-1615/DEL/2016 G.M. ENTERPRISES VS ACIT IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: SMC-I NEW DELHI BEFORE SMT DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A .NO.-1615/DEL/2016 (ASSESSMENT YEAR-2009-10) G.M. ENTERPRISES, 2287, HUDSON LANE, KINGSWAY CAMP, DELHI. PAN-AAFFG5169D ( APPELLANT) VS ACIT, CIRCLE-20(1), NEW DELHI. (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY NONE REVENUE BY NONE DATE OF HEARING 22 . 12 .2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 16.02.2017 ORDER THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE A SSAILING THE CORRECTNESS OF THE ORDER DATED 29.01.2016 OF CIT(A)-12, NEW DELHI PERT AINING TO 2009-10 ASSESSMENT YEAR ON VARIOUS GROUNDS. 2. HOWEVER, AT THE TIME OF HEARING, NO ONE WAS PRE SENT ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE OR THE REVENUE. THE LD.SR.DR IT WAS MENTIONED HAD TO S UDDENLY RUSH HOMES DUE TO SOME MEDICAL EMERGENCY IN THE FAMILY. HOWEVER, ON BEHAL F OF THE ASSESSEE THERE WAS NO ONE PRESENT. THE APPEAL WAS PASSED OVER TWICE. IN THE THIRD ROUND ALSO, THE POSITION REMAINED THE SAME AS NEITHER THE ASSESSEE WAS PRESENT NOR AN Y REQUEST FOR ADJOURNMENT HAS BEEN MOVED. THE RECORD SHOWS THAT ON THE LAST DATE OF HE ARING I.E. 17.11.2016 THE APPEAL WAS ADJOURNED TO 22.12.2016 ON THE WRITTEN REQUEST OF T HE ASSESSEE. IN THE AFORESAID FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, IT CAN BE SAFELY PRESUMED THAT THE A SSESSEE IS NOT SERIOUS IN PURSUING THE PRESENT APPEAL AND THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED IN LIMIN E. SUPPORT IS DRAWN FROM THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNALS IN COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX VS. MUL TIPLAN INDIA (P) LTD.; 38 ITD 320 (DEL) AND ESTATE OF LATE TUKOJIRAO HOLKAR VS. CWT: 223 IT R 480 (M.P). 3. BEFORE PARTING IT IS APPROPRIATE TO ADD THAT IN CAS E THE ASSESSEE IS ABLE TO SHOW THAT THERE WAS A REASONABLE CAUSE FOR NON-REPRESENTATION ON THE DATE OF HEARING, IT WOULD BE AT LIBERTY IF SO ADVISED TO PRAY FOR A RECALL OF THIS ORDER. THE SAID ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED ON THE DATE OF HEARING ITSELF IN THE OPEN COURT. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DIS MISSED IN LIMINE. . THE ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 16 TH OF FEBRUARY 2017. SD/- (DIVA SINGH) JUDICIAL MEMBER *AMIT KUMAR* PAGE 2 OF 2 I.T.A .NO.-1615/DEL/2016 G.M. ENTERPRISES VS ACIT COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI