Anand Prakash Bansal, V. ITO, Ward-2(1),

ITA 4024/DEL/2005

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 121 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2986 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 10 year(s) 4 month(s) 16 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 03-03-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 15-02-2016
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 17-10-2005
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SURENDER PAL
• Keywords: Reasonable cause

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: C NEW DELHI BEFORE SMT DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH.L.P.SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A .NO.-4024/DE L/2005 (ASSESSMENT YEAR-1986-87) ANAND PRAKASH BANSAL, 355, PATEL NAGAR, NEW MANDI, MUZAFFARNAGAR (APPELLANT) VS ITO, WARD-2(1), MUZAFFARNAGAR (RESPONDENT) A SSESSEE BY NONE R EVENUE BY SH. SURENDER PAL, SR. DR ORDER PER DIVA SINGH, JM THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE A SSAILING THE CORRECTNESS OF THE ORDER DATED 04.08.2000 OF CIT(A) , MUZAFFARNAGAR PERTAINING TO 1986-87 ASSESSMENT YEAR. 2. HOWEVER, AT THE TIME OF HEARING NO ONE WAS PRESE NT ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. THE RECORD SHOWS THAT THE PRESENT APPEAL CAME UP FOR HEARING PURSUANT TO THE ORDER U/S 254(2) DATED 28.10.2015 I N MA NO.289/DEL/2012 WHEREIN THE REGISTRY WAS DIRECTED TO FIX THE APPEAL FOR HEARING ON 13.11.2015. ON THE SAID DATE, THE RECORD SHOWS THAT THE BENCH W AS NOT FUNCTIONAL. ACCORDINGLY, NOTICE FOR THE DATE OF HEARING WAS ISS UED TO THE ASSESSEE ON 28.12.2015 AT THE ADDRESS GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE IN COLUMN NO.10. IT IS SEEN THAT DESPITE THIS FACT, NO ONE WAS PRESENT AND NO A MENDMENT IN COLUMN NO.10 IN THE MEMO OF APPEAL FILED HAS BEEN CARRIED OUT BY THE ASSESSEE. EVEN TILL THE DATE OF PASSING OF THIS ORDER, NO REQUEST ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN PLACED ON RECORD. IN THE AFORE-MENTIONED PECULIAR FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY REPRESENTATION OR PE TITION SEEKING TIME, IT CAN BE SAFELY PRESUMED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT SERIOUS IN PURSUING THE APPEAL. DATE OF HEARING 15.02.2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 03.03.2016 I. T.A .NO.-4024/DEL/2005 PAGE 2 OF 2 ACCORDINGLY THE ONLY ALTERNATIVE LEFT IS TO DISMIS S THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IN LIMINE. SUPPORT IS DRAWN FROM THE ORDER OF THE TRI BUNALS IN COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX VS. MULTI PLAN INDIA (P) LTD.; 38 ITD 32 0 (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-REPR ESENTATION ON THE DATE OF HEARING, IT WOULD BE AT LIBERTY IF SO ADVISED TO PR AY FOR A RECALL OF THIS ORDER. THE SAID ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED ON THE DATE OF HEARING IT SELF 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 03 RD OF MARCH, 2016. SD/- SD/- ( L.P.SAHU) (DIVA SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 03/03/2016 *AMIT KUMAR* COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTA NT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI