Sh. Parveen Kumar, Chandigarh V. DCIT, Chandigarh

ITA 516/CHANDI/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6499 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-12-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: Not Allotted
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 21-03-2017
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MANJIT SINGH

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCHES B, CHANDIGARH BEFORE MS. DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. B.R.R.KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 516/CHD/20 17 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13 SHRI PARVEEN KUMAR, VS THE DCIT, 113, VILLAGE BUTRELA, CIRCLE 5(1), CHANDIGARH. CHANDIGARH. PAN : AOLPK2490R (A PPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY : SHRI MANJIT SINGH, SR.DR DATE OF HEARING : 24.10.2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 13.12.2017 ORDER PER DIVA SINGH, JM THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ASSA ILING THE CORRECTNESS OF THE ORDER DATED 16.02.2017 OF CIT(A)-2 C HANDIGARH PERTAINING TO 2012-13 ASSESSMENT YEARS. 2. HOWEVER, AT THE TIME OF HEARING, NO ONE WAS PRESENT O N BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. THE APPEAL WAS PASSED OVER TWICE. IN THE THIRD ROUND ALSO, NEITHER THE ASSESSEE WAS PRESENT NOR ANY REQUEST FOR ADJOURNMENT HAS BEEN PLACED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. THE RECORD SHOWS THAT NOTICE FOR SPECIFIC DATE OF HEARING HAS BEEN SENT TO THE A DDRESS MENTIONED IN COLUMN NO. 10 IN THE MEMO OF APPEAL FILED ON 22.08.2017. IN THE PECULIAR FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, IT CAN BE SAFELY PRESUMED THAT THE ASSESSEE MAY NOT BE SERIOUS IN PURSUING THE APPEAL FILED. SUPPORT IS FROM 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 THE CASE OF LATE SHRI TU KOJI RAO HOLKAR VS WEALTH TAX COMMISSIONER 223 ITR 480 (MP) ETC. 3. BEFORE PARTING, IT IS APPROPRIATE TO ADD THAT IN THE EVE NTUALITY THE ASSESSEE IS ABLE TO SHOW THAT THERE WAS A REASONABLE C AUSE FOR NON- REPRESENTATION ON THE DATE OF HEARING, IT WOULD BE AT LIBE RTY TO PRAY FOR A ITA-516/CHD/2017. A.Y. 2012-13 PAGE 2 OF 2 RECALL OF THIS ORDER BY MAKING AN APPROPRIATE PRAYER. SAID ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT AT THE TIME OF HEARING ITSELF. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 13.12. 2017. SD/- SD/- ( DR.B.R.KUMAR) ( DIVA SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER POONAM COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. THE DR ASSTT. REGISTRAR ITAT,CHANDIGARH.