Cane Development Council, Shamli, Gorakhpur V. JCIT, Muzaffarnagar

ITA 6504/DEL/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 121 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4124 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 11 month(s) 16 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: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 01-12-2014
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Reasonable cause

Judgement Text

I.T.A .NO.-6504/DEL/2014 CANE DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL VS JCIT IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: SMC-I NEW DELHI BEFORE SMT DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A .NO.-6504/DEL/2014 (ASSESSMENT YEAR-2011-12) CANE DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL, SHAMLI, C/O-DS KOHLI, ADVOCATE, F-06, 1 ST FLOOR, NARAYAN TOWER, GANDHI LANE GOLGHAR, GORAKHPUR-273001. PAN-AAALC0276E (APPELLANT) VS JCIT, RANGE-1, MUZAFFARNAGAR. (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 01.08.2014 OF THE CIT(A), MUZAFFARNAGAR PERTAINING TO 2011-12 AY ON VARIOUS GROUNDS. 2. HOWEVER AT THE TIME OF HEARING, NO ONE WAS PRESE NT ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. THE APPEAL WAS PASSED OVER. EVEN IN THE SECOND ROUND, T HE POSITION REMAINED THE SAME. THE RECORD SHOWS THAT ON THE LAST OCCASION I.E. 31.08.2 016, THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT PRESENT AND NOTICE FOR THE SPECIFIC DATE OF HEARING WAS GIVEN O N 26.10.2016 WHICH HAD BEEN SENT ON 05.09.2016 TO THE ADDRESS OF THE ASSESSEE INDICATED IN COLUMN NO.10. IT HAS NOT COME BACK UNSERVED. ACCORDINGLY IN THE PECULIAR FACTS AN D CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE WHERE DESPITE NOTICE THE ASSESSEE CHOOSES NOT TO BE PRESE NT OR REPRESENTED, IT CAN BE SAFELY PRESUMED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT SERIOUS IN PURSUI NG THE APPEAL FILED. ACCORDINGLY, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED IN LIMINE. SUPP ORT IS DRAWN FROM THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNALS IN COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX VS. MULTI P LAN INDIA (P) LTD.; 38 ITD 320 (DEL) AND ESTATE OF LATE TUKOJIRAO HOLKAR VS. CWT: 223 IT R 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 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) JUDICIAL MEMBER *AMIT KUMAR* PAGE 2 OF 2 I.T.A .NO.-6504/DEL/2014 CANE DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL VS JCIT COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI