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

ITA 172/CHANDI/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6811 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-09-2017
• 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 172/CHD/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2001-02 MS. PREETI BAJAJ, VS. THE DCIT, 2746/1, GURDEV NAGAR, LUDHIANA. LUDHIANA. PAN NO. AFVPB6764N (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY : SHRI MANJIT SINGH DATE OF HEARING : 08.08.2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 28.09.2017 ORDER THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ASSA ILING THE CORRECTNESS OF THE ORDER DATED 07.10.2016 OF LD. CIT (APPE ALS)-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. DESPITE THIS, THE ASSESSEE REMAINED UNREPRESENTED. THE RECORD SHOWS THAT ON THE LAST DAT E OF HEARING I.E. ON 06.07.2017. THE APPEAL WAS ADJOURNED ON THE WRITTEN REQ UEST OF THE ASSESSEE. IT IS FURTHER SEEN THAT THE APPEAL, PRIOR TO TH IS, CAME UP FOR HEARING ON 30.05.2017. ON THE SAID DATE ALSO, THE APPEAL WAS ADJO URNED ON THE WRITTEN REQUEST OF THE ASSESSEE. IN THE PECULIAR FACTS A ND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE PRESENT CASE, WHERE THE ASSESSEE CONTINUES TO REM AIN UNREPRESENTED, IT CAN BE SAFELY PRESUMED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT SERIOU S IN PURSUING THE APPEAL FILED. SUPPORT IS FROM THE ORDER OF THE ITAT DELHI BEN CHES IN THE CASE OF CIT VS MULTIPLAN INDIA PVT. LTD. (1991) 38 ITD 320 AND T HE 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 172/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 28 TH SEPT., 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.