Mr. Jagdev, Faridabad V. ITO, Faridabad

ITA 5671/DEL/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6904 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 8 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-07-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 18-07-2016
• Assessment Year: 2003-2004
• Appeal Filed On: 21-10-2013
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: F R MEENA
• Keywords: Reasonable cause

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: D NEW DELHI BEFORE SMT DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH.L.P.SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A .NO.-5671/DE L/2013 (ASSESSMENT YEAR-2003-04) JAGDEV, VILLAGE-ANKHIR, FARIDABAD-121006. PAN-ACRPS7518J (APPELLANT) VS ITO, WARD-11(4), FARIDABAD (RESPONDENT) A SSESSEE BY NONE R EVENUE BY SH. F.R.MEENA, SR. DR ORDER PER DIVA SINGH, JM THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE A SSAILING THE CORRECTNESS OF THE ORDER DATED 01.08.2013 OF CIT(A) , FARIDABAD PERTAINING TO 2003-04 ASSESSMENT YEAR 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 TWICE. EVEN IN THE THIRD ROUND, THE POSITION REMAINED THE SAME. NEITHER ANYONE WAS PRESENT NOR A NY REQUEST FOR ADJOURNMENT HAS BEEN PLACED BEFORE US. ON THE LAST DATE OF HEARING WHEN THE APPEAL CAME UP FOR HEARING, IT IS SEEN THAT IT WAS ADJOURNED AS THE ASSESSEE REMAINED UNREPRESENTED. THE RECORD FURTHER SHOWS TH AT EVEN FOR TODAY THE NOTICE HAS BEEN SENT TO THE ASSESSEE ON 10.05.2016 AT THE ADDRESS INDICATED IN COLUMN NO.10, THE ASSESSEE REMAINED UNREPRESENTED. THE SAID NOTICE HAS NOT BEEN RETURNED AS UNSERVED. IN THE AFORE-MENTIONED PECULIAR FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY REP RESENTATION ON BEHALF OF THE DATE OF HEARING 18.07.2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 19.07.2016 I. T.A .NO.-5671/DEL/2013 PAGE 2 OF 2 ASSESSEE OR PETITION SEEKING TIME, IT CAN BE SAFELY PRESUMED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT SERIOUS IN PURSUING THE APPEAL FILED. ACCORDING LY THE ONLY ALTERNATIVE LEFT IS TO DISMISS THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IN LIMINE. S UPPORT IS DRAWN FROM THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNALS IN COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX VS. MULTI PLAN INDIA (P) LTD.; 38 ITD 320 (DEL) AND ESTATE OF LATE TUKOJIRAO HOLKAR V S. 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-REPR ESENTATION ON THE DATE OF HEARING, IT WOULD BE AT LIBERTY IF SO ADVISED TO PR AY FOR A RECALL OF THIS ORDER. THE SAID ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED ON THE DATE OF HEARING IT SELF IN THE OPEN COURT. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DIS MISSED. THE ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 19 TH OF JULY, 2016. SD/- SD/- (L.P.SAHU) (DIVA SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER *AMIT KUMAR* COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTA NT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI