Shri Madan Lal Chaudhary, New Delhi V. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 2976/DEL/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6723 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 12 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 07-11-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC 3
• Next Hearing Date: 29-09-2016
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 25-05-2016
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Reasonable cause

Judgement Text

I.T.A .NO.-2976/DEL/2016 MADAN LAL CHAUDHARY VS ITO IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: SMC-3 NEW DELHI BEFORE SMT DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A .NO.-2976/DEL/2016 (ASSESSMENT YEAR-2011-12) MADAN LAL CHAUDHARY, C/O-SH.ASHOK KUMAR JAIN, 1C/5, NEW ROHTAK ROAD, NEW DELHI-110005. PAN-AFHPC4466L ( APPELLANT) VS ITO, WARD-62(1), NEW DELHI. (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY NONE REVENUE BY SH.ANIL SHARMA, SR.DR DATE OF HEARING 29 .09.2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 07 .11.2016 ORDER THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE A SSAILING THE CORRECTNESS OF THE ORDER DATED 16.02.2016 OF THE CIT(A)-20, NEW DELHI PERTAINING TO 2011-12 ON VARIOUS GROUNDS. 2. HOWEVER AT THE TIME OF HEARING, NO ONE WAS PRESE NT ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. THE APPEAL WAS PASSED OVER TWICE. EVEN IN THE THIRD ROU ND, THE POSITION REMAINED THE SAME. NEITHER THE ASSESSEE WAS PRESENT NOR AN ADJOURNMENT PETITION HAD BEEN PLACED ON RECORD. IT IS FURTHER SEEN THAT THE REGISTRY HAS POINTED OU T A DEFECT IN REGARD TO THE PAYMENT OF CHALLAN FEE ON 07.06.2016 WHICH HAS NOT BEEN CURED TILL DATE. THE RECORD SHOWS THAT THE NOTICE HAS BEEN SENT TO THE ASSESSEE ON 19.08.2016 AT THE ADDRESS INDICATED IN COLUMN NO.10, HAS NOT COME BACK UNSERVED. ACCORDINGLY IN T HE PECULIAR FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, IT CAN BE SAFELY PRESUMED THAT THE ASSESS EE WHO HAS NEITHER CHOSEN TO REPRESENT HIMSELF AND NOT MADE ANY EFFORT TO CURE THE DEFECT, IS NOT SERIOUS IN PURSUING THE APPEAL FILED. SUPPORT IS DRAWN FROM THE ORDER OF THE TRIBU NALS IN COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX VS. MULTI PLAN INDIA (P) LTD.; 38 ITD 320 (DEL) AND EST ATE 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. PAGE 2 OF 2 I.T.A .NO.-2976/DEL/2016 MADAN LAL CHAUDHARY VS ITO 4. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DIS MISSED IN LIMINE. THE ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 07 TH OF NOVEMBER, 2016. 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