Sh. Rajinder Kumar, New Delhi V. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 4083/DEL/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6349 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 9 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 07-05-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 07-05-2014
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 31-07-2012
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: GAGAN SOOT
• Keywords: Reasonable cause

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: SMC NEW DELHI BEFORE SMT DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A .NO.-4083/DEL/2012 (ASSESSMENT YEAR- 2006-07) RAJINDER KUMAR, F-118, HARKESH NAGAR, NEW DELHI-110020. PAN-AASPK4975E (APPELLANT) VS ITO, WARD-22(4), NEW DELHI (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY NONE RESPONDENT BY SH. GAGAN SOOT, SR. DR ORDER THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST TH E ORDER DATED 29.02.2012 OF THE CIT(A)-XVI, NEW DELHI PERTAINING TO 2006-07 AS SESSMENT YEAR. 2. HOWEVER AT THE TIME OF HEARING NO ONE WAS PRESEN T. THE APPEAL WAS PASSED OVER. IN THE SECOND ROUND ALSO, THE POSITION REMAI NED THE SAME. THE RECORD SHOWS THAT NOTICE WAS SENT ON 20.03.2013 TO THE ADDRESS G IVEN BY THE ASSESSEE IN COLUMN NO-10 IN THE MEMO OF APPEALS FILED DESPITE THIS NEI THER ANYONE WAS PRESENT NOR ANY REQUEST FOR ADJOURNMENT HAS BEEN PLACED BEFORE THE BENCH. THE RECORD FURTHER SHOWS THAT ON THE TWO SPECIFIC DATES WHEN THE HEARI NG WAS FIXED THE ASSESSEE REMAINED UNREPRESENTED I.E. ON 03.10.2012 AND 08.08 .2013 AS PER NOTING MADE IN THE ORDER SHEET BY CO-ORDINATE BENCHES ON THE RESPE CTIVE DATES. IN THE AFORE- MENTIONED PECULIAR FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, IT CAN BE SAFELY PRESUMED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT SERIOUS IN PURSUING THE PRES ENT APPEAL. THE LAW ASSISTS THOSE WHO ARE VIGILANT AND THE ASSESSEES NON-REPRE SENTATION IN THE BACKGROUND DISCUSSED CLEARLY DEMONSTRATES THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT SERIOUS IN PURSUING THE 2 I.T.A .NO.-4083/DEL/2012 PRESENT APPEAL. IN THE AFORE-MENTIONED PECULIAR F ACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES THE ONLY ALTERNATIVE LEFT IS TO DISMISS THE APPEAL OF THE AS SESSEE IN LIMINE. SUPPORT IS DRAWN FROM THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN COMMISSIONER OF I NCOME-TAX VS. MULTI PLAN INDIA (P) LTD.; 38 ITD 320 (DEL) AND ESTATE OF LATE TUKOJIRAO HOLKAR VS. CWT: 223 ITR 480 (M.P). IN THE SAID CASE WHILE DISMISSI NG THE REFERENCE MADE AT THE INSTANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IN DEFAULT THE HONBLE COU RT MADE FOLLOWING OBSERVATIONS IN THEIR ORDER- IF THE PARTY, AT WHOSE INSTANCE THE REFERENCE IS M ADE, FAILS TO APPEAR AT THE HEARING, OR FAILS IN TAKING STEPS FOR PREPARATION OF THE PAPER BOOKS SO AS TO ENABLE HEARING OF THE REFERENC E, THE COURT IS NOT BOUND TO ANSWER THE REFERENCE. 3. BEFORE PARTING IT IS CONSIDERED APPROPRIATE TO ADD THAT IN CASE THE ASSESSEE IS ABLE TO SHOW THAT THERE WAS A REASONABLE CAUSE FOR NON-REPRESENTATION ON THE DATE OF HEARING THEN IT MAY IF SO ADVISED PRAY FOR A REC ALL OF THIS ORDER AND DECISIONS ON MERITS. 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 DISM ISSED IN LIMINE. THE ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 7 TH OF MAY 2014. SD/- (DIVA SINGH) JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED:-07/05/2014 *AMIT KUMAR* COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGI STRAR ITAT NEW DELHI