Smt. Prit Pal Kaur, Roorkee V. ITO, Roorkee

ITA 2153/DEL/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6447 (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: 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.-2153 & 2155/DEL/2016 PRIT PAL KAUR VS ITO IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: SMC-I NEW DELHI BEFORE SMT DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A .NO.-2153 TO 2155/DEL/2016 (ASSESSMENT YEAR-2006-07 TO 2008-09) PRIT PAL KAUR, 437, CIVIL LINES, ROORKEE PAN-ABBPK7405R ( 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 . 12 .201 6 ORDER ALL THESE APPEALS HAVE BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE A SSAILING THE CORRECTNESS OF THE SEPARATE ORDERS DATED 05.01.2016 OF CIT(A), DEHRADU N PERTAINING TO 2006-07 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 ON 14.10.2016 AT THE ADDRESS I NDICATED IN COLUMN NO.10 HAS NOT COME BACK UNSERVED. IT IS FURTHER SEEN THAT ON AN EARL IER OCCASION ALSO, NO ONE WAS PRESENT IN RESPONSE TO THE DATE OF HEARING I.E. 22.09.2016 FIX ED BY WAY OF ISSUANCE OF NOTICE DATED 16.08.2016. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, IT CAN BE SAFE LY 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 DISMISS THE APPEALS IN LI MINE SUPPORT IS DRAWN FROM THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNALS IN COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX VS. MUL TIPLAN INDIA (P) LTD.; 38 ITD 320 (DEL) AND ESTATE OF LATE TUKOJIRAO HOLKAR VS. CWT: 223 IT R 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.-2153 & 2155/DEL/2016 PRIT PAL KAUR VS ITO COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI