Sh. Vijay Pal Singh Gulia, V. ITO, Rohtak

ITA 2082/DEL/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6803 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 3 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-07-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 19-07-2016
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 07-04-2014
• 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.-2082/DE L/2014 (ASSESSMENT YEAR-2008-09) VIJAY PAL SINGH GULIA, J-610, COLCHA ENCLAVE, NEAR MARUTI RESIDENCY, AMLIDIH, RAIPUR-492006. PAN-ADPPG1494C (APPELLANT) VS ITO, WARD-4, ROHTAK (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 14.03.2012 OF CIT(A) , ROHTAK PERTAINING TO 2008- 09 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 F URTHER SHOWS THAT THE NOTICE HAS BEEN SENT TO THE ASSESSEE ON 24.05.2016 AT THE ADDRESS INDICATED IN COLUMN NO.10, DESPITE THIS THE ASSESSEE REMAINED UN REPRESENTED. THE SAID NOTICE HAS NOT BEEN RETURNED AS UNSERVED. IN THE A FORE-MENTIONED PECULIAR FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY REPRESENTATION ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE OR PETITION SEEKING TIME, IT CAN BE SA FELY PRESUMED THAT THE DATE OF HEARING 19.07.2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 26.07.2016 I. T.A .NO.-2082/DEL/2014 PAGE 2 OF 2 ASSESSEE IS NOT SERIOUS IN PURSUING THE APPEAL FILE D. ACCORDINGLY THE ONLY ALTERNATIVE LEFT IS TO DISMISS THE APPEAL OF THE AS SESSEE IN LIMINE. 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 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 26 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