Sh. Satish Kumar, Gurgaon V. ITO, Gurgaon

ITA 2426/DEL/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6892 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 2 month(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-07-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC 3
• Next Hearing Date: 18-07-2016
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• 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.-2426/DE L/2015 (ASSESSMENT YEAR-2009-10) SATISH KUMAR, H.NO.130, GALI NO.7B, SEETLA MATA COLONY, GURGAON. PAN-AJBPK9859P (APPELLANT) VS ITO, WARD-1(3), GURGAON (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 13.03.2015 OF CIT(A) -1, GURGAON PERTAINING TO 2009-10 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. IN THE SECOND ROUND, THE POSITION REMAINED THE SAME. NEITHER ANYONE WAS PRESENT NOR A NY REQUEST FOR ADJOURNMENT HAS BEEN PLACED BEFORE THE BENCH. THE R ECORD SHOWS THAT THE NOTICE FOR THE SAID DATE HAS BEEN SENT TO THE ASSES SEE ON 02.06.2016 AT THE ADDRESS INDICATED IN COLUMN NO.10, DESPITE THIS THE ASSESSEE REMAINED UNREPRESENTED. THE SAID NOTICE HAS NOT BEEN RETURNE D AS UNSERVED. IN THE AFORE-MENTIONED PECULIAR FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY REPRESENTATION ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE OR PET ITION SEEKING TIME, IT CAN BE SAFELY PRESUMED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT SERIOUS IN PURSUING THE APPEAL FILED. ACCORDINGLY THE ONLY ALTERNATIVE LEFT IS TO DISMIS S THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IN DATE OF HEARING 18.07.2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 19.07.2016 I. T.A .NO.-2426/DEL/2015 PAGE 2 OF 2 LIMINE. SUPPORT IS DRAWN FROM THE ORDER OF THE TRI BUNALS IN COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX VS. MULTI PLAN INDIA (P) LTD.; 38 ITD 32 0 (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 19 TH OF JULY, 2016. SD/- (DIVA SINGH) JU DICIAL MEMBER *AMIT KUMAR* COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTA NT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI