Rajinder Nath Mahendru, Gautam Budh Nagar V. DCIT, New Delhi

ITA 2795/DEL/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 130 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6816 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 01-02-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC 2
• Next Hearing Date: 16-11-2016
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 16-05-2016
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Reasonable cause
• Section: 32; 147; 131; 68; 246; 69; 145; 27; 148; 54; 37; 6; 56; 263; 63; 132; 12; 28; 144; 10; 90; 154; 2; 11; 15; 271(1)(b); 139; 92

Judgement Text

I.T.A .NO.-2793-2795/DEL/2016 RAJINDER NATH MAHENDRU VS DCIT IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: SMC-II NEW DELHI BEFORE SMT DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A .NOS.-2793 TO 2795/DEL/2016 (ASSESSMENT YEARS-2008-09 TO 2010-11) RAJINDER NATH MAHENDRU, FLAT NO.1, 15 TH FLOOR, ATS ONE HAMLET, SECTOR-104, NOIDA, GAUTAM BUDH NAGAR-201304. PAN-AAAPM0450G ( APPELLANT) VS DCIT, CIRCLE-67(1), NEW DELHI. (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY MS . MANISHA LAHOTI, CA REVENUE BY SH. F.R.MEENA, SR.DR DATE OF HEARING 16.11.2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 01.02.2017 ORDER THESE THREE APPEALS HAVE BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ASSAILING THE CORRECTNESS OF THE CONSOLIDATED ORDER DATED 17.02.2016 OF CIT(A)-34, N EW DELHI PERTAINING TO 2008-09 TO 2010- 11 ASSESSMENT YEARS ON VARIOUS GROUNDS. 2. HOWEVER, AT THE TIME OF HEARING, AN ADJOURNMENT APPLICATION WAS MOVED BY THE LD.AR STATING THAT THE APPEALS COULD NOT BE PREPARED AS T HE ASSESSEE HAS DECIDED TO APPOINT ANOTHER COUNSEL. THE RECORD SHOWS THAT THE ASSESSE E HAS EXECUTED A POWER OF ATTORNEY IN FAVOUR OF M/S B.R.MAHESHWARI & CO. THE RECORD FURT HER SHOWS THAT ON THE LAST OCCASION I.E. 29.09.2016, THE SAID COUNSEL HAD SOUGHT AN ADJOURN MENT STATING THAT HE HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO PREPARE THE APPEALS. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, IN TH E ABSENCE OF ANY POWER OF ATTORNEY IN FAVOUR OF ANY OTHER PERSON AND THE NEXT DATE OF HEA RING HAVING BEEN NOTED BY THE ARS OFFICE, THE ADJOURNMENT IF REQUIRED WOULD HAVE BEEN MOVED B Y THE ASSESSEE. THE APPOINTED COUNSEL NOT INSTRUCTED TO ARGUE AND NO FURTHER INTIMATION B EFORE THE ITAT FROM THE ASSESSEE LEADS TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE ASSESSEE MAY NOT BE SERIOUS IN PURSUING THE PRESENT APPEALS. ACCORDINGLY, THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMIS SED IN LIMINE. SUPPORT IS DRAWN FROM THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNALS IN COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TA X VS. MULTI PLAN INDIA (P) LTD.; 38 ITD 320 (DEL) AND ESTATE OF LATE TUKOJIRAO HOLKAR VS. C WT: 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-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 APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE D ISMISSED IN LIMINE. THE ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 01 ST OF FEBRUARY 2017. SD/- (DIVA SINGH) JUDICIAL MEMBER *AMIT KUMAR* PAGE 2 OF 2 I.T.A .NO.-2793-2795/DEL/2016 RAJINDER NATH MAHENDRU VS DCIT COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI