Nirmal Bajaj, Ludhiana V. Dy Commissioner of Income Tax, Ludhiana

ITA 171/CHANDI/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6718 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 9 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-10-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2001-2002
• Appeal Filed On: 25-01-2017
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MANJIT SINGH

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCHES, SMC, CHANDIGARH BEFORE MS. DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO 171/CHD/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2001-02 SHRI NIRMAL BAJAJ, VS. THE DCIT, 70A, SHASTRI NAGAR, CIRCLE-6, LUDHIANA. LUDHIANA. PAN NO. ABJPB4766G (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY : SHRI MANJIT SINGH DATE OF HEARING : 08.08.2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 31.10.2017 ORDER THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ASSA ILING THE CORRECTNESS OF THE ORDER DATED 07.10.2016 OF LD. CIT (APP EALS)-4 LUDHIANA PERTAINING TO 2001-02 ASSESSMENT YEAR. 2. HOWEVER, AT THE TIME OF HEARING, NO ONE WAS PRESENT O N BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. THE APPEAL WAS PASSED OVER. IN THE SECOND ROUND ALSO, THE POSITION REMAINED THE SAME. THE RECORD SHOWS THAT THE APPEAL W AS ADJOURNED ON 06.07.2017 ON THE REQUEST OF THE ASSESSEE. SIMILARLY ON 30 .05.2017 ALSO, THE APPEAL WAS ADJOURNED ON THE WRITTEN REQUEST OF THE ASS ESSEE. IN THE PECULIAR FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE PRESENT CASE, WHEREIN REP EATEDLY THE ASSESSEE IS SEEKING ADJOURNMENTS AND HAS NOT CARED TO PUT IN AN APPEARANCE NOR MOVE AN APPLICATION THIS TIME SAFELY LEADS TO THE CONCLUSION THA T THE ASSESSEE MAY NOT BE SERIOUS IN PURSUING THE APPEAL FILED. SUPPORT IS FRO M THE ORDER OF THE ITAT DELHI BENCHES IN THE CASE OF CIT VS MULTIPLAN INDIA P VT. 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 COMMISSIONER 223 ITR 480 (MP) ETC. 3. BEFORE PARTING, IT IS APPROPRIATE TO ADD THAT IN THE EV ENTUALITY 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 ITA 171/CHD/2017 A.Y 2001-02 PAGE 2 OF 2 OF THIS ORDER BY MAKING AN APPROPRIATE PRAYER. SAID ORDE R 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. 2017. SD/- (DIVA SINGH) JUDICIAL MEMBER POONAM COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. THE DR ASSTT. REGISTRAR ITAT,CHANDIGARH.