VINOD SINGH, Jaipur V. ITO, Jaipur

ITA 454/JPR/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 128 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2198 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 11 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 07-04-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 07-05-2015
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Reasonable cause

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES (SMC), JAIPUR BEFORE: SMT. DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 454/JP/2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010-11 SHRI VINOD SINGH, P.NO. 13-14, OM COLONY, DELHI BY PASS, JAI SINGH PURA, KHORE, JAIPUR-302002. VS. I.T.O., WARD 5(1), JAIPUR. PAN/GIR NO. ANW[S6841C APPELLANT RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : NONE. REVENUE BY : SHRI R.A. VERMA (ADDL.CIT) DATE OF HEARING: 21/03/2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 7 TH APRIL, 2017 ORDER PER: DIVA SINGH. J.M. THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ASSAILING THE CORRECTNESS OF THE ORDER DATED 30.01.2015 OF CIT (A PPEALS)-2, JAIPUR PERTAINING TO 2010-11 ASSESSMENT YEAR ON VARIOUS GROUNDS. 2. HOWEVER, AT THE TIME OF HEARING, NO ONE WAS PRES ENT ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. THE APPEAL WAS PASSED OVER TWICE. IN TH E THIRD ROUND ALSO, NEITHER THE ASSESSEE WAS PRESENT NOR ANY REQUEST FOR ADJOURNMEN T HAS BEEN RECEIVED. THE RECORD SHOWS THAT APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED ON 7 TH MAY,2015 AND HAS COME UP FOR HEARING ON ATLEAST TEN DIFFERENT OCCASIONS. IT FIR ST CAME UP FOR HEARING ON 15.03.2016. ON THAT DAY, NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF O F THE ASSESSEE. THEREAFTER, THE APPEAL CAME UP FOR HEARING ON 04.05.2016, 07.06 .2016 , 27.07.2016, 29.08.2016, 21.11.2016, 30.12.2016, 08.02.2017 AND ON EACH OF THESE OCCASIONS, TIME WAS SOUGHT ON ONE GROUND OR THE OTHER. IT IS SEEN THAT THE ADJOURNMENTS GIVEN BY CO-ORDINATE BENCHES ON DIFFERENT DATES IN GOOD F AITH HAVE NOT BEEN FAIRLY USED BY THE ASSESSEE. SINCE MORE THAN SUFFICIENT TIME HAS BEEN GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE AND WITHOUT GETTING INTO THE ISSUE OF COSTS INVOLVED TO THE TREASURY, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED IN-LIMINE AS IT APPEARS THAT THE ASSESSEE MAY NOT BE SERIOUS 2 IN PURSUING THE APPEAL FILED. SUPPORT IS DRAWN FRO M THE DECISION OF ITAT DELHI BENCHES IN THE CASE OF CIT VS MULTIPLAN INDIA PVT. LTD. (1991) 38 ITD 320 AND THE DECISION OF HON'BLE MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT IN TH E CASE OF LATE SHRI TUKOJI RAO HOLKAR VS WEALTH TAX COMMISSIONER 223 ITR 480 (MP) ETC. 3. BEFORE PARTING, IT IS APPROPRIATE TO ADD THAT IN THE EVENTUALITY 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 TO PRAY FOR A RE CALL OF THIS ORDER BY MAKING AN APPROPRIATE PRAYER AND GIVING AN UNDERTAKING TO CUR E THE DEFECT POINTED OUT BY THE REGISTRY. SAID ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN CO URT AT THE TIME OF HEARING ITSELF. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DIS MISSED IN LIMINE. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 7 TH APRIL,2017. SD/- (DIVA SINGH) JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED 7 TH APRIL, 2017. GANESH/POONAM(CHD) COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. THE DR ASSTT. REGISTRAR ITAT,JAIPUR.