Mr. Ajay Singhal, Delhi V. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 6520/DEL/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6897 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 7 month(s) 13 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: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 06-12-2013
• 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.-6520/DE L/2013 (ASSESSMENT YEAR-2009-10) AJAY SINGHAL, C/O-GMB & ASSOCIATES, D-58A, IIND FLOOR, MAIN VIKAS MARG, NEAR METRO PILLAR NO.33, LAXMI NAGAR, DELHI-110092. PAN-AQBPS3976L (APPELLANT) VS ITO, WARD-39(3), C.R. BUILDING, I.P.ESTATE, NEW DELHI (RESPONDENT) A SSESSEE BY NONE REVENUE 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 27.09.2013 OF CIT(A) -XXVIII, NEW DELHI PERTAINING TO 2009-10 ASSESSMENT YEAR ON VARIOUS GR OUNDS. 2. HOWEVER, NO ONE WAS PRESENT ON BEHALF OF THE ASS ESSEE AT THE TIME OF HEARING. THE RECORD SHOWS THAT ON THE LAST DATE OF HEARING I.E 29.12.2015, NO ONE WAS PRESENT ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. THE APP EAL WAS PASSED OVER TWICE. EVEN IN THE THIRD ROUND, THE POSITION REMAINED THE SAME. NEITHER THE ASSESSEE WAS PRESENTED NOR ANY REQUEST FOR ADJOURNMENT HAS B EEN PLACED BEFORE US. THE RECORD SHOWS THAT THE NOTICE HAS BEEN SENT TO THE A SSESSEE ON 10.05.2016 AT THE ADDRESS INDICATED IN COLUMN NO.10. THE SAID NOTICE HAS NOT BEEN RETURNED AS UNSERVED. IN THE AFORE-MENTIONED PECULIAR FACTS AN D CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE DATE OF HEARING 18.07.2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 19.07.2016 I. T.A .NO.-6520/DEL/2013 PAGE 2 OF 2 IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY REPRESENTATION ON BEHALF OF T HE ASSESSEE OR PETITION SEEKING TIME, IT CAN BE SAFELY PRESUMED THAT THE AS SESSEE IS NOT SERIOUS IN PURSUING THE APPEAL FILED. ACCORDINGLY THE ONLY AL TERNATIVE LEFT IS TO DISMISS THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IN LIMINE. SUPPORT 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. C WT: 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