Mohd. Adil, Shamli V. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 5446/DEL/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 130 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6758 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 16 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 06-02-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC 1
• Next Hearing Date: 08-12-2016
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 21-10-2016
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: F R MEENA
• Keywords: Reasonable cause

Judgement Text

I.T.A .NO.-5446 & 5447/DEL/2016 MOHD. ADIL VS ITO IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: SMC-I NEW DELHI BEFORE SMT DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A .NO.-5446 & 5447/DEL/2016 (ASSESSMENT YEAR-2009-10) MOHD. ADIL, VILLAGE GARHI DAULATPUR, KANDHLA DISTT., SHAMLI-247776. PAN-BLDPA1908G ( APPELLANT) VS ITO, WARD-1(4), NEW DELHI. (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY NONE REVENUE BY SH.F.R.MEENA, SR.DR DATE OF HEARING 08 . 12 .2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 06.02.2017 ORDER BOTH THESE APPEALS HAVE BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ASSAILING THE CORRECTNESS OF THE ORDER DATED 24.08.2016 OF CIT(A), MUZAFFAERNAGAR PE RTAINING TO 2009-10 ASSESSMENT YEAR IN THE QUANTUM AND THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS ON VARIO US GROUNDS. 2. HOWEVER, AT THE TIME OF HEARING, NO ONE WAS PRE SENT ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. THE APPEAL WAS PASSED OVER TWICE. IN THE THIRD ROUND A LSO, THE POSITION REMAINED THE SAME NEITHER THE ASSESSEE WAS PRESENT NOR ANY REQUEST FO R ADJOURNMENT HAS BEEN MOVED. IT IS SEEN THAT THE NOTICE DATED 10.11.2016 SENT TO THE A DDRESS MENTIONED IN COLUMN NO.10 OF THE MEMO OF APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WHICH HAS COME BACK WITH THE COMMENT ADHURA PATTA, WALDIYAT LIKHKAR BHEJE ATTAH WAPAS. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, IT CAN BE SAFELY PRESUMED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT SERIOUS IN PURSUI NG THE PRESENT APPEALS AND THE APPEALS ARE DISMISSED IN LIMINE. SUPPORT IS DRAWN FROM THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNALS IN COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX VS. MULTIPLAN INDIA (P) LTD.; 38 ITD 320 (DEL) AND ESTATE OF LATE TUKOJIRAO HOLKAR VS. CWT: 223 ITR 480 (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. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE D ISMISSED IN LIMINE. . THE ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 06 TH OF FEBRUARY 2017. SD/- (DIVA SINGH) JUDICIAL MEMBER *AMIT KUMAR* PAGE 2 OF 2 I.T.A .NO.-5446 & 5447/DEL/2016 MOHD. ADIL VS ITO COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI