Rajeev Aggarwal, Baddi V. DCIT, Parwanoo

ITA 229/CHANDI/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6984 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 02-08-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 02-02-2017
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCHES, SMC, CHANDIGARH BEFORE MS. DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.229/CHD/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13 SHRI RAJEEV AGGARWAL, VS. THE DCIT, PLOT N O. 191-B, HPSIDC, CIRCLE, INDUSTRIAL AREA, PARWANOO. BADDI. PAN NO. AARPA0814H (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY : NONE ( APPLICATION ) DATE OF HEARING : 24.07.2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 02.08. 2017 ORDER THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ASSAILIN G THE CORRECTNESS OF THE ORDER DATED 30.11.2016 OF CIT (APPEALS ) SHIMLA PERTAINING TO 2012-13 ASSESSMENT YEAR. HOWEVER, AT THE TIME OF HE ARING, NO ONE WAS PRESENT ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. THE APPEAL WAS PASSE D OVER TWICE. DESPITE THIS, NEITHER AN ADJOURNMENT HAS BEEN PLACED ON RECORD NOR ANY ONE HAS PUT IN A PRESENCE ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. THE RECORD SH OWS THAT VARIOUS DEFECTS HAVE BEEN POINTED OUT BY THE REGISTRY ON 23.03.2 017 IN THE APPEAL FILED ON 02.02.2017. THE APPEAL HAS COME UP FOR HEARING ON 23.03.2017, 01.05.2017 AND 22.06.2017 AND THE ASSESSEE HAS REMAINED NOT PRESENT. INFACT, NO POWER OF ATTORNEY HAS BEEN EXECUTED BY THE ASSESSEE IN FAVOUR OF ANY COUNSEL. IN THE PECULIAR FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF T HE CASE, IT CAN BE SAFELY PRESUMED THAT THE ASSESSEE MAY NOT BE SERIOUS IN PURSUING THE APPEAL FILED. SUPPORT IS FROM THE ORDER OF THE ITAT DELHI BENCHES IN THE CASE OF CIT VS MULTIPLAN INDIA PVT. LTD. (1991) 38 ITD 320 AND THE DECIS ION OF HON'BLE MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF LATE SHRI TU KOJI RAO HOLKAR VS WEALTH TAX COMMISSIONER 223 ITR 480 (MP) ETC. ITA 229/CHD/2017 A.Y. 2012-13 PAGE 2 OF 2 3. BEFORE PARTING, IT IS APPROPRIATE TO ADD THAT IN THE EV ENTUALITY THE ASSESSEE IS ABLE TO SHOW THAT THERE WAS A REASONABLE C AUSE FOR NON- REPRESENTATION ON THE DATE OF HEARING, IT WOULD BE AT LIBE RTY TO PRAY FOR A RECALL OF THIS ORDER BY MAKING AN APPROPRIATE PRAYER AND GIVING AN UNDERTAKING TO CURE THE DEFECTS POINTED OUT BY THE REGISTRY. 4. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 02.08. 2017. SD/- (DIVA SINGH) JUDICIAL MEMBER POONAM COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. THE DR ASSTT. REGISTRAR ITAT,CHANDIGARH.