Prakash Chand, Rewari V. ITO, Rewari

ITA 2221/DEL/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6425 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-12-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC 1
• Next Hearing Date: 08-11-2016
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 25-04-2016
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: F R MEENA

Judgement Text

I.T.A .NO.-2221/DEL/2016 PRAKASH CHAND VS ITO IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: SMC-I NEW DELHI BEFORE SMT DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A .NO.-2221/DEL/2016 (ASSESSMENT YEAR-2011-12) PRAKASH CHAND, PROP. M/S. KHEM RAM DEVI SAHAI, C/O-NAMAN SHARMA, ADV., S/O-SH.V.K.SHARMA, ADV., H.NO.-6863, BAS SITAB RAI, REWARI-123401. PAN-AAQPC3061R ( APPELLANT) VS ITO, WARD-1, REWARI (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY NONE REVENUE BY SH. F.R.MEENA, SR.DR DATE OF HEARING 08 . 11 .2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 28 .1 2 .2016 ORDER THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE A SSAILING THE CORRECTNESS OF THE ORDER DATED 16.03.2016 OF CIT(A), ROHTAK PERTAINING TO 201213 ASSESSMENT YEAR ON VARIOUS GROUNDS. 2. HOWEVER, AT THE TIME OF HEARING, NO ONE WAS PRES ENT ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. THE APPEAL WAS PASSED OVER THRICE. IN THE FOURTH ROUND , AN ADJOURNMENT PETITION STATED TO HAVE BEEN FAXED WAS PLACED ON RECORD STATING THAT THE CO UNSEL WAS SUFFERING FROM CHIKUNGUNYA. IT WAS NOTICED THAT NEITHER THE APPLICATION MENTIONS T HE NAME OF THE COUNSEL NOR IS THE NAME OF THE APPLICANT MENTIONED IN THE APPLICATION. SINCE NO ONE WAS PRESENT IN SUPPORT OF THE ADJOURNMENT AND CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT THE DEFEC TS POINTED OUT BY THE REGISTRY ON 10.05.2016 TILL DATE REMAINED NOT CURED; AND THE F ACT THAT THE APPEAL WHICH CAME UP FOR HEARING ON 22.09.2016 ON WHICH DATE THE ASSESSEE MO VED AN ADJOURNMENT. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, WHERE THE ASSESSEE STILL HAS NOT CUR ED THE DEFECT TILL DATE THE ADJOURNMENT PETITION MOVED BY AN UN-NAMED PERSON FOR AN UN-NAME D COUNSEL WAS REJECTED AS IT CAN BE SAFELY PRESUMED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT SERIOUS IN PURSUING THE APPEAL FILED. WHILE SO HOLDING LIBERTY IS GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE INCASE THE ASSESSEE IS SERIOUS IN PURSUING THE PRESENT APPEAL TO PRAY FOR A RECALL OF THIS ORDER ON THE UN DERTAKING THAT THE DEFECT SHALL BE CURED THE SAID ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED ON THE DATE OF HEARING IT SELF IN THE OPEN COURT. 3. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DIS MISSED IN LIMINE. THE ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 28 TH OF DECEMBER, 2016. SD/- (DIVA SINGH) JUDICIAL MEMBER *AMIT KUMAR* PAGE 2 OF 2 I.T.A .NO.-2221/DEL/2016 PRAKASH CHAND VS ITO COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI