Sh. Rajindra Pal Singh, Roorkee V. ITO, Roorkee

ITA 2150/DEL/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6504 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 16-12-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC 1
• Next Hearing Date: 09-11-2016
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• 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.-2150 TO 2152/DEL/2016 RAJINDRA PAL SINGH VS ITO IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: SMC-I NEW DELHI BEFORE SMT DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A .NO.-2150 TO 2152/DEL/2016 (ASSESSMENT YEAR-2006-07 & 2008-09) RAJINDRA PAL SINGH, 437, CIVIL LINES, ROORKEE. PAN-ACAPS3033M ( 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 16 .1 2 .2016 ORDER THE APPEALS HAVE BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ASSAILI NG THE CORRECTNESS OF THE SEPARATE ORDERS DATED 05.01.2016 OF THE CIT(A), DEH RADUN PERTAINING TO 2006-07 & 2008- 09 AYS 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. EVEN IN THE THIRD ROUND, THE POSITION REMAINED THE SAME. NEITHER THE ASSESSEE WAS PRESENT NOR ANY ADJOURNMEN T HAS BEEN PLACED BEFORE THE BENCH. THE RECORD SHOWS THAT NOTICE FOR THE DATE OF HEARIN G HAS BEEN SENT ON 14.10.2016 TO THE ASSESSEE AT THE ADDRESS MENTIONED IN COLUMN NO.10 I N THE MEMO OF APPEAL FILED WHICH HAS NOT BEEN COME BACK UNSERVED. THE RECORD FURTHER SH OWS THAT EVEN ON AN EARLIER OCCASION I.E. 22.09.2016 WHEN THE APPEAL CAME UP FOR HEARING VIDE NOTICE DATED 16.08.2016, THE ASSESSEE REMAINED UNREPRESENTED. ACCORDINGLY, IN TH ESE PECULIAR FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY REQUEST FOR TIME TILL DATE, I T CAN BE SAFELY PRESUMED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT SERIOUS IN PURSUING THE APPEALS FILED. SUPPO RT IS DRAWN FROM THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNALS IN COMMISSIONER 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-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 16 TH OF DECEMBER, 2016. SD/- (DIVA SINGH) JUDICIAL MEMBER *AMIT KUMAR* PAGE 2 OF 2 I.T.A .NO.-2150 TO 2152/DEL/2016 RAJINDRA PAL SINGH VS ITO COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI