Shri Bhupinderjit Singh Sawhney, New Delhi V. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 3572/DEL/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6439 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 6 month(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-12-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC 1
• Next Hearing Date: 07-11-2016
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 03-06-2015
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: F R MEENA
• Assessee Lawyers: H S RATRA
• Keywords: Reasonable cause

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: SMC-I NEW DELHI BEFORE SMT DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A .NO.-3572/DEL/2015 (ASSESSMENT YEAR-2010-11) BHUPINDERJIT SINGH SAWHNEY, C/O-OREM AMAR & COMPANY, CAS, 69, DDA FLATS, JWALA HERI, PASCHIM VIHAR, NEW DELHI-110063. PAN-AAXPS2112A ( APPELLANT) VS ITO, WARD-26(2), NEW DELHI (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY SH. H.S.RATRA, CA REVENUE BY SH. F.R.MEENA, SR.DR DATE OF HEARING 10 . 11 .2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 29 .1 2 .201 6 ORDER THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE A SSAILING THE CORRECTNESS OF THE ORDER DATED 09.03.2015 OF CIT(A)-15, DELHI PERTAIN ING TO 201011 ASSESSMENT YEAR ON VARIOUS GROUNDS. HOWEVER, AT THE TIME OF HEARING, AN ADJOU RNMENT APPLICATION WAS MOVED BY THE ASSESSEE STATING THAT RESPECTFULLY IT IS SUBMITTED TO PLEASE ADJOURN THE CASE AND OBLIGE. SH. H.S.RATRA, CA WAS APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESS EE WAS REQUIRED TO ADDRESS THE REASONS FOR SEEKING AN ADJOURNMENT AS THE APPLICATION MOVED IS SILENT THEREON; HE WAS ALSO REQUIRED TO ADDRESS WHY THE DEFECT POINTED OUT BY THE REGISTRY IN REGARD TO THE TRIBUNAL FEE ON 03.12.2015 TILL DATE HAS NOT BEEN CURED. NO REASONS WERE GIVE N BY THE LD.AR. THE RECORD SHOWS THAT THE APPEAL HAS COME UP FOR HEARING ON THREE DIFFERENT O CCASIONS, WHEREIN ON 28.07.2016 IT WAS ADJOURNED AS NO WAS PRESENT ON BEHALF OF THE ASSES SEE; ON 15.09.2016 IT WAS ADJOURNED ON THE REQUEST OF THE ASSESSEES COUNSEL; AND ON 07.11 .2016 IT WAS AGAIN ADJOURNED ON THE WRITTEN REQUEST OF THE ASSESSEE AND SOME OFFICE TRA INEE WHO HAD BEEN SENT IN SUPPORT OF THE PETITION MOVED, ON THE SAID DATE, WAS REMINDED THAT THE DEFECT ON RECORD REMAINED NOT CURED. THE SPECIFIC ORDER SHEET ENTRY IS REPRODUCED HEREUN DER:- 07 TH NOV. 2016: ADJ. TO 10 TH NOV. 2016. LD.AR DIRECTED TO CURE THE DEFECT BY T HE NEXT DATE. MS. PRIYA SEHGAL, OFFICE TRAINEE PRESENT TO TAKE A DATE. MR. F. R.MEENA, SR.DR FOR REVENUE. READ OUT IN THE TRIBUNAL. SD/- (JUDICIAL MEMBER) 2.1. IN THE AFORE-MENTIONED PECULIAR FACTS AND CIRC UMSTANCES, IT CAN BE SAFELY PRESUMED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT SERIOUS IN PURSUING THE PR ESENT APPEAL, ACCORDINGLY IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY REPRESENTATION OR PETITION SEEKING TIME, THE ON LY ALTERNATIVE LEFT IS TO DISMISS THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IN LIMINE. SUPPORT IS DRAWN FROM THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNALS IN COMMISSIONER OF PAGE 2 OF 2 ITA NO.3572/DEL/2015 BHUPINDERJIT SINGH SAWHNEY VS ITO 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. THE ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 29 TH OF DECEMBER, 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