Sh. Ashok Kumar Gupta, New Delhi V. DCIT, New Delhi

ITA 2206/DEL/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4629 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-09-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 12-04-2017
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: IN FAVOUR OF ANY IN AFOREMENT
• Keywords: Reasonable cause

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH SMC , NEW DELHI BEFORE MS. DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA N O. 2206 /DEL/201 7 A SSESSMENT YEAR: 20 06 - 07 ASHOK KUMAR GUPTA 17/83, THAN SINGH NAGAR, ANAND PARBAT NEW DELHI VS. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE - 16 NEW DELHI PAN : AALPG4014H (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) O R D E R PER DIVA SINGH , J .M . : THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ASSAILING THE CORRECTNESS OF THE ORDER DATED 8 . 2 .201 7 OF THE CIT(A) - 27 , NEW DELHI PERTAINING TO 20 06 - 07 ASSESSMENT YEAR . ALTHOUGH VARIOUS GROUNDS HAVE BEEN RAISED HOWEVER, AT THE TIME OF HEARING, NO ONE WAS PRESENT ON BEHALF OF THE ASSES SEE. THE APPEAL WAS PASSED OVER. 2. IN THE SECOND ROUND ALSO NEITHER THE ASSESSEE WAS PRESENT NOR ANY REQUEST FOR ADJOUR NMENT HAS BEEN PLACED ON RECORD. THE RECORD SHOWS THAT NOTICE HAS BEEN SENT TO THE ASSESSEE AT THE ADDRESS MENTIONED IN C OLUMN NO. 10 IN THE MEMO OF APPEALS FILED ON 12.7.2017. THE NOTICE HAS NOT RETURNED UNSERVED. IT IS FURTHER SEEN THAT NO POWER OF A TTORNEY AS PER RECORD HAS BEEN EXECUTED BY THE ASSESSEE IN FAVOUR OF ANY COUNSEL. IN THE AFOREMENTIONED PECULIAR FACTS AND CI RCUMSTANCES IT CAN BE SAFELY PRESUMED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT SERIOUS IN PURSUING THE APPEALS FILED. SUPPO RT IS DRAWN FROM THE ORDER OF THE ITAT DELHI BENCHES IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. MULTIPLAN INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED (1991) APPELLANT BY NONE RESPONDENT BY SH. T. VASANTHAN, SR. D.R. DATE OF HEARING 21 - 08 - 201 7 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 12 - 09 - 2017 2 ITA NO. 2206 /DEL/201 7 38 ITD 320 TO THE DECISION OF HON BLE MADHYA PRADESH IN THE CASE OF LATE SRI. TIKOZ RAO VS. WEALTH TAX COMMISSIONER 222 ITR 480 (MP). 2. BEFORE PARTING IT IS APPROPRIATE TO ADD THAT IN THE EVENTUALITY THE ASSESSEE IS ABLE TO SHOW THAT THERE WAS A REASONABLE CAUSE FOR NON REPRESENTATION O N THE DATE OF HEARING, IT WOULD BE AT LIBERTY TO PRAY FOR A RECALL OF THIS ORDER BY MAKING A N APPROPRIATE PRAYER. THE SAID ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT AT THE TIME OF HEARING ITSELF . 3. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED IN LIMINE. 4. THE ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 12.09.2017. SD/ - (DIVA SINGH) JUDICIAL MEMBER N. MISHRA ) SH COPY FORWARDED TO: 1 . APPELLANT 2 . RESPONDENT 3 . CIT 4 . CIT(APPEALS) 5 . DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR , ITAT NEW DELHI DATE 1. DRAFT DICTATED ON 22.08.2017 PS 2. DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR 08.09.2017 PS 3. DRAFT PROPOSED & PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER JM/AM 4. DRAFT DISCUSSE D/APPROVED BY SECOND MEMBER. JM/AM 5. APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.PS/PS 12.09.2017 PS/PS 6. KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT ON PS 7. FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK 12.09.2017 PS 8. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE AR 9. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE HEAD C LERK. 10. DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER.