Sh. Vijay Kumar Chauhan, New Delhi V. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 2820/DEL/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6436 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 7 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-12-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC 2
• Next Hearing Date: 07-11-2016
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 07-05-2014
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: F R MEENA
• Keywords: Reasonable cause

Judgement Text

I.T.A .NO.-2820/DEL/2014 VIJAY KUMAR CHAUHAN VS ITO IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: SMC-II NEW DELHI BEFORE SMT DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A .NO.-2820/DEL/2014 (ASSESSMENT YEAR-2007-08) VIJAY KUMAR CHAUHAN, 70, NEHRU MARKET, NEW DELHI-110044. PAN-ACXPC0166E ( APPELLANT) VS ITO, WARD-22(3), NEW DELHI (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY NONE REVENUE BY SH. F.R.MEENA, SR.DR DATE OF HEARING 07 . 11 .2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 22 .1 2 .2016 ORDER THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE A SSAILING THE CORRECTNESS OF THE ORDER DATED 11.02.2014 OF CIT(A)-XI, NEW DELHI PERT AINING TO 200708 ASSESSMENT YEAR ON VARIOUS GROUNDS. 2. HOWEVER, AT THE TIME OF HEARING, NO ONE WAS PRES ENT ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. THE APPEAL WAS PASSED OVER TWICE. IN THE THIRD ROUND A LSO, NEITHER ANYONE WAS PRESENT NOR ANY ADJOURNMENT HAS BEEN MOVED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE REC ORD SHOWS THAT ON 19.09.2016, THE APPEAL WAS ADJOURNED ON THE REQUEST OF BOTH THE PAR TIES AND THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH OBSERVED THAT BOTH THE PARTIES HAVE BEEN INFORMED. IT IS FU RTHER SEEN THAT NO POWER OF ATTORNEY HAD BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AS PER NOTING OF THE BEN CH CLERK. IN THE AFOREMENTIONED PECULIAR FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, IT CAN BE SAFELY PRESUMED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT SERIOUS IN PURSUING THE APPEAL FILED. ACCORDINGLY, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED IN LIMINE. SUPPORT IS DRAWN FROM THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNALS IN COMMISSIONER 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-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 22 ND OF DECEMBER, 2016. SD/- (DIVA SINGH) JUDICIAL MEMBER *AMIT KUMAR* PAGE 2 OF 2 I.T.A .NO.-2820/DEL/2014 VIJAY KUMAR CHAUHAN VS ITO COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI