Virender Singh Beniwal, Faridabad V. ITO, Faridabad

ITA 1945/DEL/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6725 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 07-11-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC 3
• Next Hearing Date: 27-09-2016
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 11-04-2016
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Reasonable cause

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: SMC-3 NEW DELHI BEFORE SMT DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A .NO.-1945/DEL/2016 (ASSESSMENT YEAR-2012-13) VIRENDER SINGH BENIWAL, PROP. SHIKHA ENTERPRISES, 1E-WH-24A, FARIDABAD-121001. PAN-AGPPB4839H ( APPELLANT) VS ITO, WARD-11(2), FARIDABAD. (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY NONE REVENUE BY NONE DATE OF HEARING 27 .09.2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 07.11.2016 ORDER THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE A SSAILING THE CORRECTNESS OF THE ORDER DATED 25.01.2016 OF THE CIT(A), FARIDABAD PER TAINING TO 2012-13 ON VARIOUS GROUNDS. 2. HOWEVER, AT THE TIME OF HEARING, NO ONE WAS PRES ENT ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. THE APPEAL WAS PASSED OVER TWICE. EVEN IN THE THIRD ROU ND, THE POSITION REMAINED THE SAME. THE RECORD SHOWS THAT THE LISTING OF THE PRESENT AP PEAL HAS BEEN DONE AFTER ISSUANCE OF NOTICE TO THE ASSESSEE ON 16.08.2016 AT THE ADDRE SS INDICATED IN COLUMN NO.10, DESPITE THIS THE ASSESSEE REMAINED UNREPRESENTED. IT IS FURTHER SEEN THAT THE SAID NOTICE HAS NOT COME BACK UNSERVED. IN VIEW THEREOF THE ADJOURNMENT MOVED BY THE REVENUE WAS REJECTED, HOLDING THAT IN THE PECULIAR FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANC ES OF THE PRESENT CASE, IT CAN BE SAFELY PRESUMED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT SERIOUS IN PURSU ING THE PRESENT APPEAL. SUPPORT IS DRAWN FROM THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNALS IN COMMISSION ER OF INCOME-TAX VS. MULTI PLAN INDIA (P) LTD.; 38 ITD 320 (DEL) AND ESTATE OF LATE TUKOJ IRAO HOLKAR VS. CWT: 223 ITR 480 (M.P). IT MAY BE PERTINENT TO NOTE THAT RIGHT TILL THE DAT E OF PASSING OF THIS ORDER, NO PETITION SEEKING TIME OR OTHERWISE HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. 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. THE ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 07 TH OF NOVEMBER, 2016. SD/- (DIVA SINGH) JUDICIAL MEMBER *AMIT KUMAR* I.T .A .NO.-1945/DEL/2016 PAGE 2 OF 2 COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT A SSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI