M/s Galley Financiers & Property Consultants Pvt. Ltd., Patiala V. ITO, Patiala

ITA 51/CHANDI/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 126 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5177 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 1 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 01-03-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: Not Allotted
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 29-01-2016
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Reasonable cause

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCHA, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SMT. DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.51/CHD/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-11 M/S GALLEY FINANCIERS & PROPERTY VS. THE ITO CONSULTANTS PVT. LTD. PATIALA 4154/1, INSIDE SIRHINDI GATE PATIALA PAN NO. AABCG3381J (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY : SMT. CHANDERKANTA DATE OF HEARING : 11/12/2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 01/03/2018 ORDER PER DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, A.M: THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE A SSAILING THE CORRECTNESS OF THE ORDER DATED 03/11/2015 OF CIT (A PPEALS), PATIALA PERTAINING TO 2010-11 ASSESSMENT YEAR ON VARIOUS GROUNDS. HOWEVE R, AT THE TIME OF HEARING, NO ONE WAS PRESENT ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. THE APPEAL WAS PASSED OVER. IN THE SECOND ROUND ALSO, NEITHER THE ASSESSEE WAS PRE SENT NOR ANY REQUEST FOR ADJOURNMENT HAS BEEN PLACED ON RECORD. 2. THE RECORD SHOWS THAT THE APPEAL WAS FILED BY TH E ASSESSEE ON 29.01.2016 AND IT CAME UP FOR HEARING FOR THE FIRST TIME ON 30 .03.2016. ON THE SAID DATE, IT WAS ADJOURNED ON THE REQUEST OF THE COUNSEL DR TO 2 4.05.2016. ON THE NEXT DATE OF HEARING, ADJOURNMENT WAS SOUGHT BY THE ASSE SSEES COUNSEL AND APPEAL WAS LISTED FOR HEARING ON 27.07.2016. IT WA S NOTICED THAT ON VARIOUS OCCASIONS APPEAL WAS ADJOURNED SOMETIMES ON REQUEST OF ASSESSEE AND ON SOME TIME ON REQUEST OF DEPARTMENT. THE APPEAL WERE FIXED FOR HEARING BEFORE THE BENCH TODAY I.E 11/12/2017. AT THE TIME OF HEA RING, NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. THE NOTICE OF HEARING WAS S ENT TO THE ASSESSEE, BUT THERE WAS NO COMPLIANCE ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. EVEN NO APPLICATION SEEKING ADJOURNMENT WAS FILED. IT CAN BE SAFELY PRESUMED TH AT THE ASSESSEE MAY NOT BE 2 SERIOUS IN PURSUING THE APPEAL FILED. SUPPORT IS FR OM THE ORDER OF THE 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 F OR NON-REPRESENTATION ON THE DATE OF HEARING, IT WOULD BE AT LIBERTY TO PRAY FOR A RECALL OF THIS ORDER BY MAKING AN APPROPRIATE PRAYER. SAID ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED I N THE OPEN COURT AT THE TIME OF HEARING ITSELF. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DIS MISSED. THE ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 01/03/2018. SD/- SD/- (DIVA SINGH) (DR. B.R.R. KUMAR) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED : 01/03/2018 AG COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. THE DR