Smt. Rajni Verma, Muzaffarnagar V. ITO, Muzaffarnagar

ITA 3614/DEL/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 130 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6569 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 16-02-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC 2
• Next Hearing Date: 19-12-2016
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 17-06-2016
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: B RAMANJANEYULU
• Keywords: Reasonable cause

Judgement Text

I.T.A .NO.-3614/DEL/2016 RAJNI VERMA VS ITO IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: SMC-II NEW DELHI BEFORE SMT DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A .NO.-3614/DEL/2016 (ASSESSMENT YEAR-2006-07) RAJNI VERMA, D/O-SH. MADAN PAL VERMA, 461, ANANDPURI, GALI NO.2, MUZAFFARNAGAR. PAN-ADOPV7851R ( APPELLANT) VS ITO, WARD-1(1), MUZAFFARNAGAR. (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY NONE REVENUE BY SH.B.RAMANJANEYULU, SR.DR DATE OF HEARING 19 . 12 .2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 16 . 02 .201 7 ORDER THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE A SSAILING THE CORRECTNESS OF THE ORDER DATED 14.12.2015 OF CIT(A), MUZAFFARNAGAR PERTAININ G TO 2006-07 ASSESSMENT YEAR ON VARIOUS GROUNDS. 2. HOWEVER, AT THE TIME OF HEARING, NO ONE WAS PRE SENT ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. THE APPEAL WAS PASSED OVER TWICE. IN THE THIRD ROUND A LSO, THE POSITION REMAINED THE SAME AS NEITHER THE ASSESSEE WAS PRESENT NOR ANY REQUEST FOR ADJOUR NMENT HAS BEEN MOVED. THE RECORD SHOWS THAT THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ON 17.06.2016 CAME UP FOR HEARING ON 13.10.2016, ON THE SAID DATE IT WAS ADJOURNED ON THE REQUEST OF THE AS SESSEE TO 22.11.2016. ON THE SAID DATE, ANOTHER ADJOURNMENT WAS MOVED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSE SSEE AND THE APPEAL WAS ADJOURNED TO 19.12.2016 I.E. TODAY. THE RECORD SHOWS THAT THE A PPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DELAYED BY 89 DAYS AND A DEFECT NOTICE TO THIS FACT AS PER RECORD WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE ON 28.06.2016. IN THE AFORE-MENTIONED PECULIAR FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCE S WHERE DESPITE OPPORTUNITY THE ASSESSEE CONTINUES TO REMAIN ABSENT, IT CAN BE SAFELY PRESUM ED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT SERIOUS IN PURSUING THE PRESENT APPEAL AND THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED IN L IMINE. SUPPORT IS DRAWN FROM THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNALS IN COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX VS. MULTIPL AN 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 TH E DATE OF HEARING, IT WOULD BE AT LIBERTY IF SO ADVISED TO PRAY FOR A RECALL OF THIS ORDER. THE SA ID 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 16 TH OF FEBRUARY 2017. SD/- (DIVA SINGH) JUDICIAL MEMBER *AMIT KUMAR* PAGE 2 OF 2 I.T.A .NO.-3614/DEL/2016 RAJNI VERMA VS ITO COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI