M/s Poineer Contractors & Engineers Pvt. Ltd., Ghaziabad V. ITO, Ghaziabad

ITA 2666/DEL/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 130 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7081 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 05-01-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC 2
• Next Hearing Date: 10-11-2016
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 11-05-2016
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: F R MEENA
• Keywords: Reasonable cause

Judgement Text

I.T.A .NO.-2666/DEL/2016 POINEER CONTRACTORS & ENGINEERS P.LTD. VS ITO IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: SMC-II NEW DELHI BEFORE SMT DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A .NO.-2666/DEL/2016 (ASSESSMENT YEAR-2008-09) POINEER CONTRACTORS & ENGINEERS PVT.LTD., 163-B, CHANDERPURI, GHAZIABAD-201001. PAN-AAECP5089K ( APPELLANT) VS ITO, WARD-2(1), GHAZIABAD (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY NONE REVENUE BY SH. F.R.MEENA, SR.DR DATE OF HEARING 10 . 11 .2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 05 . 01 .201 7 ORDER THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE A SSAILING THE CORRECTNESS OF THE ORDER DATED 29.02.2016 OF CIT(A), GHAZIABAD PERTAIN ING TO 200809 ASSESSMENT YEAR ON VARIOUS GROUNDS. 2. HOWEVER, AT THE TIME OF HEARING, NO ONE WAS PRE SENT ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. THE APPEAL WAS PASSED OVER TWICE. IN THE THIRD ROU ND ALSO, THE POSITION REMAINED THE SAME. THE RECORD SHOWS THAT THE NOTICE FOR THE SPE CIFIC DATE OF HEARING HAS BEEN ISSUED ON 06.10.2016 AT THE ADDRESS GIVEN IN FORM NO.36, COLU MN NO.-10 WHICH HAS NOT COME BACK UNSERVED. THE RECORD FURTHER SHOWS THAT ON THE EAR LIER DATE OF HEARING I.E. 27.09.2016 IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE ISSUED 29.08.2016, THE ASSESSEE REMAINED UNREPRESENTED. IT IS FURTHER SEEN THAT NO POWER OF ATTORNEY HAS BEEN EXECUTED BY THE ASSESSEE IN FAVOUR OF ANY ONE. ACCORDINGLY, IN THE PECULIAR FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCE S OF THE PRESENT CASE, IT CAN BE SAFELY PRESUMED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT SERIOUS IN PURSU ING THE PRESENT APPEAL. ACCORDINGLY IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY REPRESENTATION OR PETITION SEEKI NG TIME, THE ONLY ALTERNATIVE LEFT IS TO DISMISS THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IN LIMINE. SUPP ORT IS DRAWN FROM THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNALS IN COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX VS. MULTIPL AN INDIA (P) LTD.; 38 ITD 320 (DEL) AND ESTATE OF LATE TUKOJIRAO HOLKAR VS. CWT: 223 ITR 48 0 (M.P). PAGE 2 OF 2 I.T.A .NO.-2666/DEL/2016 POINEER CONTRACTORS & ENGINEERS P.LTD. VS ITO 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-REPRESENTATION ON THE DATE OF HEARING, IT WOULD BE AT LIBERTY IF SO ADVISED TO PRAY FOR A RECALL OF THIS ORDER. THE SAID ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED ON THE DATE OF HEARING ITSELF IN THE OPEN COURT. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DIS MISSED IN LIMINE. . THE ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 05 TH OF JANUARY 2017. SD/- (DIVA SINGH) JUDICIAL MEMBER *AMIT KUMAR* COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI