Cane Development Council (Titawi), Muzaffarnagar V. CIT, Muzaffarnagar

ITA 6434/DEL/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7117 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 2 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 08-02-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 03-11-2015
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 03-12-2013
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SULEKHHA VERMA
• 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.-6434/DE L/2013 CANE DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL (TITAWI) OPPOSITE : RAILWAY STATION, RAILWAY ROAD, MUZAFFARNAGAR PAN: AAALC0173E (APPELLANT) VS CIT MUZAFFARNAGAR (RESPONDENT) A SSESSEE BY NONE R EVENUE BY MS. SULEKHHA VERMA, CIT(DR) ORDER PER DIVA SINGH, JM THE PRESENT APPEAL WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ASSAIL ING THE CORRECTNESS OF THE ORDER DATED 14.03.2013 OF CIT, MUZAFFARNAGAR ON THE VARIOUS GROUNDS. 2. HOWEVER, AT THE TIME OF HEARING NO ONE WAS PRESE NT ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE APPEAL WAS PASSED OVER TWICE. DESP ITE THIS EVEN IN THE THIRD ROUND, NO ONE WAS PRESENT ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE . THE RECORD SHOWS THAT ON THE EARLIER OCCASIONS WHEN THE APPEAL CAME UP FOR H EARING I.E. 8 TH JUNE, 2015 AND 3 RD NOVEMBER, 2015 IT WAS ADJOURNED ON ACCOUNT OF THE FACT THAT DESPITE NOTICE NO ONE WAS PRESENT. IT IS FURTHER SEEN FROM THE RECORD THAT FOR THE PRESENT DATE OF HEARING NOTICE HAS BEEN ISSUED TO THE ASSES SEE ON 10.12.2015 AT THE ADDRESS GIVEN IN COLUMN NO. 10 IN THE MEMO OF APPEA L FILED. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES IT CAN BE SAFELY PRESUMED THAT THE AS SESSEE IS NOT SERIOUS IN PURSUING THE APPEAL. ACCORDINGLY IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY REPRESENTATION OR PETITION SEEKING TIME, THE ONLY ALTERNATIVE LEFT IS TO DISMISS THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IN LIMINE. SUPPORT IS DRAWN FROM THE ORDE R OF THE TRIBUNALS IN COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX VS. MULTI PLAN INDIA (P) LTD.; 38 ITD 320 (DEL) AND ESTATE OF LATE TUKOJIRAO HOLKAR VS. CWT: 223 ITR 48 0 (M.P). DATE OF HEARING 28.01.2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 08.02.2016 .T.A .NO. 643 4/DEL/2013 CANE DEVE LOPMENT COUNCIL (TITAWI) PAGE 2 OF 2 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; AND THE ASSESSEE IS IN A POSITION TO ADDRE SS THE DELAY THEN THE ASSESSEE IF SO ADVISED WOULD BE AT LIBERTY TO PRAY FOR A REC ALL 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. THE ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 08 OF FEBRUARY, 2016. SD/- SD/- ( L.P.SAHU) (DIVA SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED:08/02/2016 *BINITA/AMIT KUMAR* COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTA NT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI