Durlabh Singh, Sangrur V. ITO, Ward Sunam HQ, Sangrur

ITA 294/CHANDI/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 122 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4021 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 09-10-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 07-03-2018
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: CHANDER KANTA SR DR

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH A CHANDIGARH !, ' # . %.. . & , '( # BEFORE: SMT. DIVA SINGH, JM & DR. B.R.R.KUMAR, AM ITA NO. 294/CHD/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2013-14 SHRI DURLABH SINGH, SIDHU NIWAS, CHAINPURA BASTI, LEHRAGAGA, SANGRUR. VS ITO, WARD, SUNAM(HQ-SANGRUR) PAN NO: BTWPS3661K APPELLANT RESPONDENT !' ASSESSEE BY : NONE #!' REVENUE BY : SMT. CHANDER KANTA, SR.DR $ %! & DATE OF HEARING : 25.09.2018 '()*! & D ATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 09.10.2018 ')/ ORDER PER DIVA SINGH THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ASS AILING THE CORRECTNESS OF THE ORDER DATED 22.12.2017 OF CIT(A), PATIALA PERTAINING TO 2013-14 ASSESSMENT YEAR ON VARIOUS GROUNDS. 2. HOWEVER, AT THE TIME OF HEARING, NO ONE WAS PRESENT O N BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. THE APPEAL WAS PASSED OVER TWICE. EVEN THER EAFTER, WHEN THE APPEAL WAS CALLED OUT FOR HEARING, NO ONE WAS PRESENT ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. THE RECORD SHOWS THAT NOTICE HAD BEEN SENT TO THE ASSESSEE THROUGH RPAD AT THE ADDRESS GIVEN IN FORM NO. 36 ION CO LUMN NO. 10. IT IS FURTHER SEEN THAT ON AN EARLIER DATE OF HEARING I.E. 25.0 7.2018, DESPITE ISSUING OF NOTICE BY RPAD, THE ASSESSEE REMAINED UNREPRES ENTED. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, GRANT OF ADJOURNMENT AND ISSUANCE OF ANOT HER NOTICE WOULD BE A WASTE OF GOVERNMENT TIME AND MACHINERY AS IT CAN BE SAFELY PRESUMED THAT THE ASSESSEE MAY NOT BE SERIOUS IN PURS UING THE APPEAL FILED. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS DEEMED APPROPRIATE TO DISMISS THE AP PEAL FILED. SUPPORT IS FROM THE ORDER OF THE ITAT DELHI BENCHES IN TH E CASE OF CIT VS ITA -294/CHD/2018 A.Y.2013-14 PAGE 2 OF 2 MULTIPLAN INDIA PVT. LTD. (1991) 38 ITD 320 AND THE DECISION OF HON'BLE MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF LATE SHRI TUKO JI RAO HOLKAR VS WEALTH TAX COMMISSIONER 223 ITR 480 (MP) ETC. 3. BEFORE PARTING, IT IS APPROPRIATE TO ADD THAT IN THE EVE NTUALITY THE ASSESSEE IS ABLE TO SHOW THAT THERE WAS A REASONABLE C AUSE FOR NON- REPRESENTATION ON THE DATE OF HEARING, IT WOULD BE AT LIBER TY TO PRAY FOR A RECALL OF THIS ORDER BY MAKING AN APPROPRIATE PRAYER. SAID ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT AT THE TIME OF HEARING ITSELF. 4. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 09.10.2018. SD/- SD/- ( . %.. . & ) ( ! ) (DR. B.R.R. KUMAR) (DIVA SINGH) '( #/ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ' #/ JUDICIAL MEMBER + , (+! ,-.- COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. THE APPELLANT - 2. THE RESPONDENT - 3. $ / CIT 4. $ / 01 THE CIT(A) 5. -2 45&456789 DR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 6. 8:% GUARD FILE (+ $ BY ORDER, ; # ASSISTANT REGISTRAR