Mahabir Singh, Karnal V. ITO, Karnal

ITA 5275/DEL/2012

• Counselvise Citation: 527520114 RSA 2012
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 7 month(s) 14 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-05-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Next Hearing Date: 25-05-2015
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 15-10-2012
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: P DAM KANUNJNA

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: E NEW DELHI BEFORE SMT DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. N.K.SAINI , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A .NO. - 5275 /DEL/201 2 (ASSESSMENT YEAR - 200 9 - 1 0) MAHABIR SINGH, C/O - GIRISH ANEJA, CA. - 796, SECTOR - 13, U.E.KARNAL - 132001. PAN - AYPPS0605Q (APPELLANT) VS ITO, WARD - 4, AAYKAR BHAWAN, SECTOR - 12, KARNAL - 132001 (HARYANA) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY NONE RESPONDENT BY SH. P.DAM KANUNJ N A, SR. DR ORDER PER DIVA SINGH, JM BY THE PRESENT APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE THE CORRECTNESS OF THE ORDER DATED 01.06.2012 OF CIT(A), KARNAL PERTAINING TO 2009 - 10 ASSESSMENT YEAR HAS BEEN ASSAILED. 2. HOWEVER, AT THE TIME OF HEARING, NO ONE WAS PRESENT ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. THE APPEAL WAS PASSED OVER . IN TH E SE COND ROUND AN ADJOURNMENT PETITION WAS PLACED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE . SINCE NO ONE WAS PRESENT IN SUPPORT OF THE SAME, AGAIN A PASS OVER WAS GIVEN . IN THE THIRD ROUND ALSO, THE POSITION REMAINED THE SAME, NO ONE WAS PRESENT ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE IN SUPPORT OF THE ADJOURNMENT PETITION ON RECORD. CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT THE REGISTRY HAS POINTED OUT DEFECT IN THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND HAS INFORMED THE SAME BY ISSUING A NOTICE ON 16.10.2012 THAT THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL SUBMITTED BEFORE THE !TAT HAVE NOT BEEN SIGNED BY THE ASSESSEE WHICH REMAINS UNADDRESSED. ACCORDINGLY ON A PERUSAL OF THE DATE OF HEARING 25.0 5 .2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 29 .05.2015 I.T.A .NO. - 5275/DEL/2012 PAGE 2 OF 2 RECORD WHICH SHOWS THAT THE GROUNDS MOVED HAVE BE EN SIGNED BY THE LD. AR, SH. GIRISH ANEJA, CA AND NOT BY THE ASSESSEE AS PER THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE RULES MADE UNDER THE ACT . THE RECORD FURTHER SHOWS THAT APART FROM THAT IT IS ALSO SEEN THAT THE APPEAL WHICH CAME UP FOR HEARING ON SEVEN OCCASIONS HAS BE EN ADJOURNED ONCE ON THE REQUEST OF THE DEPARTMENT; ON ONE OCCASION IT WAS ADJOURNED FOR WANT OF TIME ; AND O N ONE OCCASION ON ACCOUNT OF THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT REPRESENTED. ON EACH OF THE FOUR REMAINING OCCASIONS, THE APPEAL WAS ADJOURNED ON THE REQUEST OF THE ASSESSEE. IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT THE DEFECT TILL DATE REMAINS NOT CURED. ACCORDINGLY , WE FIND THAT THERE IS NO PURPOSE TO KEEP THE APPEAL ALIVE IN THE FACE OF THE PECULIAR FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. THE APPEAL IN VIEW THEREOF IS DISMISSED IN LIMINE GIVING LIBERTY TO THE ASSESSEE TO PRAY FOR A RECALL OF THE PRESENT ORDER, IF SO ADVISE BY RECTIFYING THE DEFECT POINTED OUT BY THE REGISTRY AND MOVING AN APPROPRIATE PETITION PRAYING FOR A RECALL IF NEED BE . THE CO - ORDINATE BENCH CONS IDERING THE PETITION, IF SO MOVED MAY CONSIDER RECALLING THE ORDER IF WARRANTED ON FACTS IF THE DEFECT POINTED OUT IS CURED . THE SAID ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT AT THE TIME OF HEARING. 3. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED I N LIMINE. THE ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 2 9 T H OF MAY, 2015. S D / - S D / - ( N.K.SAINI ) (DIVA SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 2 9 /05/2015 * AMIT KUMAR * COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI