Sh. U.K. Menon, Gurgaon V. ITO, Gurgaon

ITA 1986/DEL/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6895 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 3 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-07-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 18-07-2016
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 04-04-2014
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: F R MEENA
• Keywords: Reasonable cause

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: D NEW DELHI BEFORE SMT DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH.L.P.SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A .NO.-1986/DE L/2014 (ASSESSMENT YEAR-2009-10) U.K.MENON, C/O-YPS RANA & ASSOCIATES, 205-208, DEEP PLAZA, NEAR CIVIL COURT, GURGAON-122001. PAN-ADHPM8939Q (APPELLANT) VS ITO, WARD-2(1), GURGAON (RESPONDENT) A SSESSEE BY NONE REVENUE BY SH. F.R.MEENA, SR. DR ORDER PER DIVA SINGH, JM THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE A SSAILING THE CORRECTNESS OF THE ORDER DATED 16.01.2014 OF CIT(A) -2, FARIDABAD PERTAINING TO 2009-10 ASSESSMENT YEAR ON VARIOUS GROUNDS. 2. HOWEVER, NO ONE WAS PRESENT ON BEHALF OF THE ASS ESSEE AT THE TIME OF HEARING, THE APPEAL WAS PASSED OVER TWICE. EVEN IN THE THIRD ROUND, THE POSITION REMAINED THE SAME. NEITHER ANYONE WAS PRESENT NOR A NY REQUEST FOR ADJOURNMENT HAS BEEN PLACED BEFORE US. THE RECORD S HOWS THAT THE NOTICE HAS BEEN SENT TO THE ASSESSEE ON 24.05.2016 AT THE ADDR ESS INDICATED IN COLUMN NO.10. THE SAID NOTICE HAS NOT BEEN RETURNED AS UNS ERVED. IN THE AFORE- MENTIONED PECULIAR FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE C ASE IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY REPRESENTATION ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE OR PETITIO N SEEKING TIME, IT CAN BE SAFELY PRESUMED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT SERIOUS IN PURSUI NG THE APPEAL FILED. DATE OF HEARING 18.07.2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 19.07.2016 I. T.A .NO.-1986/DEL/2014 PAGE 2 OF 2 ACCORDINGLY THE ONLY ALTERNATIVE LEFT IS TO DISMIS S THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IN LIMINE. SUPPORT IS DRAWN FROM THE ORDER OF THE TRI BUNALS IN COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX VS. MULTI PLAN INDIA (P) LTD.; 38 ITD 32 0 (DEL) AND ESTATE OF LATE TUKOJIRAO HOLKAR VS. CWT: 223 ITR 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-REPR ESENTATION ON THE DATE OF HEARING, IT WOULD BE AT LIBERTY IF SO ADVISED TO PR AY FOR A RECALL OF THIS ORDER. THE SAID ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED ON THE DATE OF HEARING IT SELF 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 19 TH OF JULY, 2016. SD/- SD/- (L.P.SAHU) (DIVA SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER *AMIT KUMAR* COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTA NT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI