Sh. Arvind Kumar Nandal, Rohtak V. ITO, Rohtak

ITA 2420/DEL/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6756 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 3 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-07-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC 3
• Next Hearing Date: 20-07-2016
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 24-04-2015
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ANIMA BARNWAL
• Keywords: Reasonable cause

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: SMC-3 NEW DELHI BEFORE SMT DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A .NO.-2420/DE L/2015 (ASSESSMENT YEAR-2011-12) ARVIND KUMAR NANDAL, S/O-SH.SUMER SINGH NANDAL, R/O-VPO, BOHAR, DISTT.-ROHTAK, ROHTAK PAN-AHZPK9537A (APPELLANT) VS ITO, WARD-1, ROHTAK (RESPONDENT) A SSESSEE BY NONE R EVENUE BY MS.ANIMA BARNWAL, SR. DR ORDER PER DIVA SINGH, JM THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE A SSAILING THE CORRECTNESS OF THE ORDER DATED 25.02.2015 OF CIT(A) , ROHTAK PERTAINING TO 2011- 12 ASSESSMENT YEAR ON VARIOUS GROUNDS. 2. HOWEVER, NO ONE WAS PRESENT ON BEHALF OF THE ASS ESSEE AT THE TIME OF HEARING, THE APPEAL WAS PASSED OVER. EVEN IN THE SE COND ROUND, THE POSITION REMAINED THE SAME. NEITHER ANYONE WAS PRESENT NOR A NY REQUEST FOR ADJOURNMENT HAS BEEN PLACED BEFORE US. THE RECORD F URTHER SHOWS THAT THE NOTICE HAS BEEN SENT TO THE ASSESSEE ON 02.06.2016 AT THE ADDRESS INDICATED IN COLUMN NO.10, DESPITE THIS THE ASSESSEE REMAINED UN REPRESENTED. THE SAID NOTICE HAS NOT BEEN RETURNED AS UNSERVED. IN THE A FORE-MENTIONED PECULIAR FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY REPRESENTATION ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE OR PETITION SEEKING TIME, IT CAN BE SA FELY PRESUMED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT SERIOUS IN PURSUING THE APPEAL FILE D. ACCORDINGLY THE ONLY ALTERNATIVE LEFT IS TO DISMISS THE APPEAL OF THE AS SESSEE IN LIMINE. SUPPORT IS DATE OF HEARING 20.07.2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 25.07.2016 I. T.A .NO.-2420/DEL/2015 PAGE 2 OF 2 DRAWN FROM THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNALS IN COMMISSION ER 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-REPR ESENTATION ON THE DATE OF HEARING, IT WOULD BE AT LIBERTY IF SO ADVISED TO PR AY FOR A RECALL OF THIS ORDER. THE SAID ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED ON THE DATE OF HEARING IT SELF IN THE OPEN COURT. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DIS MISSED. THE ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 25 TH OF JULY, 2016. SD/- (DIVA SINGH) JUD ICIAL MEMBER *AMIT KUMAR* COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTA NT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI