Shri Sachin Jain, Rishikesh V. ITO, Rishikesh

ITA 4840/DEL/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6449 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-12-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC 2
• Next Hearing Date: 10-11-2016
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 09-09-2016
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: F R MEENA
• Keywords: Reasonable cause

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: SMC-II NEW DELHI BEFORE SMT DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A .NO.-4840/DEL/2016 (ASSESSMENT YEAR-2005-06) SACHIN JAIN, S/O-SH.CHAMAN LAL JAIN, NEAR JAIN MANDIR, SHANTI NAGAR, RISHIKESH. PAN-ADHPJ2085N ( APPELLANT) VS ITO, WARD-1(4)(2), RISHIKESH. (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY NONE REVENUE BY SH. F.R.MEENA, SR.DR DATE OF HEARING 10 . 11 .2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 29 .1 2 .201 6 ORDER THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE A SSAILING THE CORRECTNESS OF THE ORDER DATED 01.02.2016 OF CIT(A), DEHRADUN PERTAIN ING TO 200506 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 THE THIRD ROUND A LSO, NEITHER ANYONE WAS PRESENT NOR ANY ADJOURNMENT REQUEST HAS BEEN PLACED BEFORE THE BENC H. THE RECORD SHOWS THAT THE NOTICE FOR THE SPECIFIC DATE OF HEARING HAS BEEN ISSUED ON 06. 10.2016 AT THE ADDRESS GIVEN IN COLUMN NO.-10 WHICH HAS COME BACK UNSERVED WITH THE COMMEN T GHAR CHOD GAYE I.E. LEFT THE PREMISES. THE REGISTRY HAS ALSO POINTED OUT ON 22. 09.2016 THAT THE APPEAL IS DELAYED BY 152 DAYS. ACCORDINGLY, IN THE PECULIAR FACTS AND CIRCU MSTANCES OF THE PRESENT CASE, IT CAN BE SAFELY PRESUMED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT SERIOUS IN PURSU ING THE PRESENT APPEAL AS OTHERWISE THERE IS NOTHING ON RECORD TO SHOW THAT THE ASSESSEE IS I NTERESTED IN ADDRESSING THE DELAY. ACCORDINGLY IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY REPRESENTATION OR PETITION SEEKING TIME, THE ONLY ALTERNATIVE LEFT IS TO DISMISS THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IN LI MINE. SUPPORT IS DRAWN FROM THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNALS IN COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX VS. MULTIPL AN INDIA (P) LTD.; 38 ITD 320 (DEL) AND ESTATE OF LATE TUKOJIRAO HOLKAR VS. CWT: 223 ITR 48 0 (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. PAGE 2 OF 2 ITA NO.4840/DEL/2016 SACHIN JAIN VS ITO 4. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DIS MISSED IN LIMINE. THE ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 29 TH OF DECEMBER, 2016. SD/- (DIVA SINGH) JUDICIAL MEMBER *AMIT KUMAR* COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI