Mr. Mukesh Kumar, New Delhi V. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 3430/DEL/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 130 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6788 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 8 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 08-02-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC 2
• Next Hearing Date: 14-12-2016
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 28-05-2015
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Reasonable cause

Judgement Text

I.T.A .NO.-3430/DEL/2015 MUKESH KUMAR VS ITO IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: SMC-II NEW DELHI BEFORE SMT DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A .NO.-3430/DEL/2015 (ASSESSMENT YEAR-2009-10) MUKESH KUMAR, 88, 3 RD FLOOR, HARI NAGAR ASHRAM, NEW DELHI-110014. PAN-AGJPK3717F ( APPELLANT) VS ITO, WARD-54(2), NEW DELHI. (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY NONE REVENUE BY NONE DATE OF HEARING 14 . 12 .2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 08.02.2017 ORDER THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE A SSAILING THE CORRECTNESS OF THE ORDER DATED 19.03.2015 OF CIT(A)-18, NEW DELHI PERT AINING TO 2009-10 ASSESSMENT YEAR ON VARIOUS GROUNDS. 2. HOWEVER, AT THE TIME OF HEARING, NO ONE WAS PRE SENT ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE REVENUE. THE APPEAL WAS PASSED OVER TWICE. IN THE THIRD ROUND ALSO, THE POSITION REMAINED THE SAME AS NEITHER THE ASSESSEE WAS PRESE NT NOR ANY REQUEST FOR ADJOURNMENT HAD BEEN MOVED ON ITS BEHALF. THE RECORD SHOWS THAT ON EACH OF THE DATES, THE APPEAL CAME UP FOR HEARING NAMELY 28.07.2016; 15.09.2016; 21.09.2016; AND 09.1.2016, THE APPEAL WAS ADJOURNED ON THE WRITTEN REQUEST OF THE ASSESSEE. THUS, IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, IT CAN BE SAFELY PRESUMED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT SERIOUS IN PURSUING THE PRESENT APPEAL. ACCORDINGLY REJECTING THE ADJOURNMENT MOVED BY THE REVENUE, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED IN LIMINE. SUPPORT IS DRAWN FROM THE O RDER OF THE TRIBUNALS IN COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX VS. MULTIPLAN 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 08 OF FEBRUARY 2017. SD/- (DIVA SINGH) JUDICIAL MEMBER *AMIT KUMAR* PAGE 2 OF 2 I.T.A .NO.-3430/DEL/2015 MUKESH KUMAR VS ITO COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI