Mr. Surendra Pal Chauhan, Hapur V. ITO, Hapur

ITA 535/DEL/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 121 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4135 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 9 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 17-11-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC 1
• Next Hearing Date: 20-10-2016
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 02-02-2016
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Reasonable cause

Judgement Text

I.T.A .NO.-535/DEL/2016 SURENDRA PAL CHAUHAN VS ITO IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: SMC-1 NEW DELHI BEFORE SMT DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A .NO.-535/DEL/2016 (ASSESSMENT YEAR-2009-10) SURENDRA PAL CHAUHAN, 77-MAHADEV RANA PATTI, PILKHUWA DISTRICT, HAPUR. PAN-ABJPC3488L (APPELLANT) VS ITO, WARD-2, HAPUR. (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY NONE REVENUE BY SH. N.K.BANSAL, SR.DR DATE OF HEARING 20 . 1 0.2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 17.11.2016 ORDER THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE A SSAILING THE CORRECTNESS OF THE ORDER DATED 10.08.2015 OF THE CIT(A), GHAZIABAD PER TAINING TO 2009-10 AY ON VARIOUS GROUNDS. 2. HOWEVER, NO ONE WAS PRESENT ON BEHALF OF THE ASS ESSEE AT THE TIME OF HEARING. THE APPEAL WAS PASSED OVER. EVEN IN THE SECOND ROUND, THE POSITION REMAINED THE SAME AS NEITHER THE ASSESSEE IS REPRESENTED NOR THERE IS AN Y ADJOURNMENT ON RECORD. THE RECORD SHOWS THAT ON 21.08.2015 THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD MOVE D AN ADJOURNMENT AND THE DATE HAS BEEN NOTED ON BEHALF O THE ASSESSEE. THE RECORD FU RTHER SHOWS THAT ON TWO PRIOR OCCASIONS I.E. ON 02.02.2016 IT WAS ADJOURNED ON THE REQUEST OF THE ASSESSEE AND ON 04.04.2016, NONE WAS PRESENT. CONSIDERING THE OVERALL FACTS WH ERE THE REGISTRY HAS ALSO POINTED OUT A DELAY OF 89 DAYS. ACCORDINGLY, IN THE PECULIAR FAC TS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE PRESENT CASE, IT CAN BE SAFELY PRESUMED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT SERIOUS IN PURSUING THE PRESENT APPEAL AS OTHERWISE THERE IS NOTHING ON RECORD TO SHOW THA T THE ASSESSEE IS INTERESTED IN ADDRESSING THE DELAY. ACCORDINGLY IN THE ABSENCE O F ANY REPRESENTATION OR PETITION SEEKING TIME, THE ONLY ALTERNATIVE LEFT IS TO DISMISS THE A PPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IN LIMINE. SUPPORT IS DRAWN FROM THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNALS IN COMMISSION ER OF INCOME-TAX VS. MULTI PLAN INDIA (P) LTD.; 38 ITD 320 (DEL) AND ESTATE OF LATE TUKOJ IRAO HOLKAR VS. CWT: 223 ITR 480 (M.P). PAGE 2 OF 2 I.T.A .NO.-535/DEL/2016 SURENDRA PAL CHAUHAN VS ITO 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 THEN THE ASSESSEE IF SO ADVISED WOULD BE AT LIBERTY TO PRAY FOR A RECALL OF THIS ORDER AND DECISION ON MERIT. THE SAID ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED ON THE DATE O F 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 17 TH OF NOVEMBER, 2016. SD/- (DIVA SINGH) JUDICIA L MEMBER *AMIT KUMAR* COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI