Vikram Singh, New Delhi V. DCIT, New Delhi

ITA 4567/DEL/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6661 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-11-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC 2
• Next Hearing Date: 02-11-2016
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 26-08-2016
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Reasonable cause

Judgement Text

ITA NOS.4566 & 4567/DEL/2016 VIKRAM SINGH VS DCIT IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: SMC-II NEW DELHI BEFORE SMT DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A .NO.-4566 & 4567/DEL/2016 (ASSESSMENT YEAR-2004-05 & 2008-09) VIKRAM SINGH, C-18-19, QUTAB INSTITUTIONAL AREA, NEW DELHI-110016. PAN-AAMPS8704R (APPELLANT) VS DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-20, 3 RD FLOOR, ARA CENTRE, JHANDEWALAN EXTN., NEW DELHI. (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY NONE REVENUE BY NONE DATE OF HEARING 02 . 11 .2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 18.11.2016 ORDER THE APPEALS HAVE BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ASSAILI NG THE CORRECTNESS OF THE SEPARATE ORDERS DATED 20.06.2016 OF THE CIT(A)-24, NEW DELHI PERTAINING TO 2004-05 AND 2008-09 AYS RESPECTIVELY WHEREIN LEVY OF PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) BY THE AO HAS BEEN UPHELD. 2. HOWEVER AT THE TIME OF HEARING, NO ONE WAS PRESE NT ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE AND AN ADJOURNMENT PETITION WAS MOVED ON BEHALF OF THE REV ENUE. NO ONE WAS PRESENT IN SUPPORT THEREOF. THE APPEALS WERE PASSED OVER TWICE. EVEN IN THE THIRD ROUND, THE POSITION REMAINED THE SAME. THE RECORD SHOWS THAT THE NOTICE HAS BEE N SENT TO THE ASSESSEE ON 26.09.2016 AT THE ADDRESS INDICATED IN COLUMN NO.10, DESPITE THIS THE ASSESSEE REMAINED UNREPRESENTED. ACCORDINGLY, REJECTING THE DEPARTMENTAL ADJOURNMENT WHERE DESPITE NOTICE THE ASSESSEE CHOOSES NOT TO BE PRESENT OR REPRESENTED, THE APPEA LS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED IN LIMINE AS IT CAN BE SAFELY PRESUMED THAT THE ASSESS EE IS NOT SERIOUS IN PURSUING THE APPEALS FILED. SUPPORT IS DRAWN FROM THE ORDER OF THE TRIBU NALS IN COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX VS. MULTI PLAN INDIA (P) LTD.; 38 ITD 320 (DEL) AND EST ATE 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 APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE D ISMISSED IN LIMINE. THE ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 18 TH OF NOVEMBER, 2016. SD/- (DIVA SINGH) JUDICIAL MEMBER *AMIT KUMAR* PAGE 2 OF 2 ITA NOS.4566 & 4567/DEL/2016 VIKRAM SINGH VS DCIT COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI