Smt. Tarun Kalra, Roorkee V. ITO, Roorkee

ITA 2149/DEL/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6443 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-12-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC 1
• Next Hearing Date: 09-11-2016
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 21-04-2016
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: F R MEENA
• Keywords: Reasonable cause

Judgement Text

I.T.A .NO.-2148 & 2149/DEL/2016 TARUN KALRA VS ITO IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: SMC-I NEW DELHI BEFORE SMT DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A .NO.-2148 & 2149/DEL/2016 (ASSESSMENT YEAR-2007-08 TO 2008-09) TARUN KALRA, 437, CIVIL LINES, ROORKEE PAN-ARRPK8656N ( APPELLANT) VS ITO, WARD-2, ROORKEE (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY NONE REVENUE BY SH.F.R.MEENA, SR.DR DATE OF HEARING 09.11.2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 29 .1 2 .201 6 ORDER BOTH THESE APPEALS HAVE BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ASSAILING THE CORRECTNESS OF THE ORDER DATED 05.01.2016 OF CIT(A), DEHRADUN PERTAINI NG TO 2007-08 TO 2008-09 ASSESSMENT YEARS ON VARIOUS GROUNDS. 2. HOWEVER, AT THE TIME OF HEARING, NO ONE WAS PRES ENT ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. THE APPEALS WERE PASSED OVER TWICE. IN THE THIRD ROUND ALSO, NEITHER ANYONE WAS PRESENT NOR ANY ADJOURNMENT APPLICATION HAS BEEN MOVED BY THE ASSES SEE. THE RECORD SHOWS THAT THE NOTICE SENT TO THE ASSESSEE FOR THE SPECIFIC DATE OF HEARI NG ON 14.10.2016 AT THE ADDRESS INDICATED IN COLUMN NO.10 HAS NOT COME BACK UNSERVED. IT IS FU RTHER SEEN THAT ON AN EARLIER OCCASION ALSO, NO ONE WAS PRESENT IN RESPONSE TO THE DATE O F HEARING 21.09.2016 FIXED BY WAY OF ISSUANCE OF NOTICE DATED 16.08.2016. IN THESE CIRC UMSTANCES, IT CAN BE SAFELY PRESUMED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT SERIOUS IN PURSUING THE APPEALS FILED. ACCORDINGLY, IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY REASONS GIVEN, IT IS CONSIDERED APPROPRIATE TO DISM ISS THE APPEALS IN LIMINE SUPPORT IS DRAWN FROM THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNALS IN COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX VS. MULTIPLAN INDIA (P) LTD.; 38 ITD 320 (DEL) AND ESTATE OF LATE TUKOJIRAO HOLKAR V S. 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-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 APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE D ISMISSED IN LIMINE. THE ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 29 TH OF DECEMBER, 2016. SD/- (DIVA SINGH) JUDICIAL MEMBER *AMIT KUMAR* PAGE 2 OF 2 I.T.A .NO.-2148 & 2149/DEL/2016 TARUN KALRA VS ITO COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI