Sh. Rahul Rathi, Noida V. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 2796/DEL/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 130 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6813 (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: 2011-2012
• 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.-2796/DEL/2016 RAHUL RATHI VS ITO IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: SMC-II NEW DELHI BEFORE SMT DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A .NO.-2796/DEL/2016 (ASSESSMENT YEAR-2011-12) RAHUL RATHI, J-140, JAL VAYU VIHAR, SECTOR-25, NOIDA-201301. PAN-AGTPR2907C ( APPELLANT) VS ITO, WARD-1(3), NEW DELHI. (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY NONE REVENUE BY SH. F.R.MEENA, S R.DR DATE OF HEARING 16 . 11 .2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 01.02.2017 ORDER THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE A SSAILING THE CORRECTNESS OF THE ORDER DATED 29.02.2016 OF CIT(A)-1, NOIDA PERTAININ G TO 2011-12 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 ROUND A LSO, THE POSITION REMAINED THE SAME NEITHER THE ASSESSEE WAS PRESENT NOR ANY REQUEST FO R ADJOURNMENT HAS BEEN MOVED. THE RECORD SHOWS THAT THE NOTICE FOR THE DATE OF HEARI NG HAS BEEN ISSUED ON 06.10.2016 SENT TO THE ADDRESS MENTIONED IN COLUMN NO.10 OF THE MEM O OF APPEAL FILED WHICH HAS NOT COME BACK UNSERVED. IT IS SEEN THAT ON THE LAST DATE OF HEARING I.E 29.09.2016 IN RESPECT OF NOTICE SENT ON 29.08.2016, THE ASSESSEE REMAINED UN REPRESENTED. IT IS FURTHER SEEN THAT NO POWER OF ATTORNEY IN FAVOUR OF THE ANY PERSON HAS B EEN ISSUED BY THE ASSESSEE. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, IT CAN BE SAFELY PRESUMED THAT THE A SSESSEE IS NOT SERIOUS IN PURSUING THE PRESENT APPEAL AND THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED IN LIMIN E. SUPPORT IS DRAWN FROM THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNALS IN COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX VS. MUL TIPLAN INDIA (P) LTD.; 38 ITD 320 (DEL) AND ESTATE OF LATE TUKOJIRAO HOLKAR VS. CWT: 223 IT R 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 APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DIS MISSED 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.-2796/DEL/2016 RAHUL RATHI VS ITO COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI