Virendra Pratap Singh, Uttar Pradesh V. ITO, Noida

ITA 4745/DEL/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 130 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6814 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 01-02-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC 2
• Next Hearing Date: 17-11-2016
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 06-09-2016
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: F R MEENA
• Keywords: Reasonable cause

Judgement Text

I.T.A .NO.-4745/DEL/2016 VIRENDRA PRATAP SINGH VS ITO IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: SMC-II NEW DELHI BEFORE SMT DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A .NO.-4745/DEL/2016 (ASSESSMENT YEAR-2011-12) VIRENDRA PRATAP SINGH, S/O-THAKUR HIRI SINGH, 22, KASAVAN, RABUPURA, DISTT.- GAUTAM BUDHA NAGAR, UTTAR PRADESH-203135. PAN-BPMPS4427P ( APPELLANT) VS ITO, WARD-3(4), AAYAKAR BHAWAN,A-2D, SECTOR-24, NOIDA. (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY NONE REVENUE BY SH. F.R.MEENA, S R.DR DATE OF HEARING 17 . 11 .2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 01 . 0 2 .201 7 ORDER THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE A SSAILING THE CORRECTNESS OF THE ORDER DATED 15.06.2016 OF CIT(A)-1, NOIDA PERTAININ G TO 2011-12 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. IN THE SECOND ROUND ALSO, THE POSITION REMAINED THE SAME AS NEITHER THE ASSESSEE WAS PRESENT NOR ANY REQUEST FO R ADJOURNMENT HAS BEEN MOVED. THE RECORD SHOWS THAT INTIMATION FOR THE DATE OF HEARIN G WAS SENT TO THE ASSESSEE ON 18.10.2016 AT THE ADDRESS GIVEN IN COLUMN NO.10 IN THE MEMO OF APPEAL FILED. THE SAID NOTICE HAS NOT COME BACK UNSERVED. IN THESE CIRCUM STANCES, IT CAN BE SAFELY PRESUMED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT SERIOUS IN PURSUING THE PR ESENT APPEAL AND THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED IN LIMINE. SUPPORT IS DRAWN FROM THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNALS IN COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX VS. MULTIPLAN 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 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 APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DIS MISSED IN LIMINE. . THE ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 01 ST OF FEBRUARY 2017. SD/- (DIVA SINGH) JUDICIAL MEMBER *AMIT KUMAR* PAGE 2 OF 2 I.T.A .NO.-4745/DEL/2016 VIRENDRA PRATAP SINGH VS ITO COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI