Ajit Singh, Gurgaon V. ITO, Ward- 1, Gurgaon

ITA 6982/DEL/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 125 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7192 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 11-07-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 22-11-2017
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S L ANURAGI

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: SMC NEW DELHI BEFORE SMT DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL ME MBER ITA NO.-6982/DEL/2017 ( ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2014-15) AJIT SINGH H.NO. 1745, SECTOR 46, GURGAON, C/O RANVIJAY SINGH, ADVOCATE 20A, SANJAY NAGAR, GULABI BAGH, NEW DELHI-110 007 VS ITO WARD - 1(1), GURGAON ASSESSEE BY NONE REVENUE BY SH. S.L.ANURAGI , SR. DR ORDER THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ASSA ILING THE CORRECTNESS OF THE ORDER DATED 20.9.2017 PERTAINING TO 2014-15 ASSESSMENT YEAR ON VARIOUS GROUNDS. HOWEVER, AT THE TIM E OF HEARING NO ONE WAS PRESENT ON BEHALF OF ASSESSEE DESPITE THE FACT T HAT NOTICE FOR THE SPECIFIC DATE OF HEARING HAD BEEN SENT ON 01.06.2018 BY THE REGISTRY AT THE ADDRESS MENTIONED IN COLUMN NO. 10 IN THE MEMO OF AP PEALS FILED. IT IS FURTHER SEEN THAT TILL DATE NO POWER OF ATTORNEY HAS BE EN EXECUTED BY THE ASSESSEE IN FAVOUR OF ANY COUNSEL. THE APPEAL WAS PAS SED OVER TWICE. SINCE DESPITE THIS THE ASSESSEE REMAINED UNREPRESENTED AND NO REQUEST FOR ADJOURNMENT WAS MOVED. ACCORDINGLY IN THE PECULIAR FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES , I AM OF THE OPINION THAT THE ASSESSEE MA Y NOT BE SERIOUS IN PURSUING THE APPEAL FILED. THE APPEAL, ACCORDINGLY IS DISMISSED. 2. RELIANCE IS PLACED ON THE CASE OF CIT VS. MULTIPLAN (INDIA) PVT. LTD. 38 ITD 320 (DEL.) WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT ISSUANCE OF NOTICE UNDER RULE 19 BY ITSELF DOES NOT MAKE THE APPEAL ADMISSIBLE. NON -ATTENDANCE MAKES THE APPEAL DEFECTIVE AND THE ASSESSEE HAS TO COR RECT THE SAME BY GIVING PROPER ADDRESS ETC. AND PARTICIPATION. SIMILARLY HON'B LE MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF ESTATE OF LATE TUKOJIR AO HOLKAR VS. CWT (223 ITR 480) HAS ALSO HELD IF THE PARTY, AT WHOSE INSTANCE THE REFERENCE IS MADE, FAILS TO APPEAR AT THE HEARING, OR FAILS IN TAKIN G STEPS FOR PREPARATION OF THE PAPER BOOKS SO AS TO ENABLE HEARING OF THE REF ERENCE, THE COURT IS NOT BOUND TO ANSWER THE REFERENCE. THE HONBLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH DATE OF HEARING 03 .07 .2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 11. 07 .2018 ITA NO . 6982/DEL/2017 AJIT SINGH VS. ITO 2 COURT ALSO IN THE CASE OF NEW DIWAN OIL MILLS VS. CIT (2008) 296 ITR 495) RETURNED THE REFERENCE UNANSWERED SINCE THE ASSESSEE REMAINED ABSENT AND THERE WAS NOT ANY ASSISTANCE FROM THE ASSESSEE. RE FERENCE MAY ALSO BE MADE TO THE CASE OF CIT VS. B. BHATTACHARGEE & ANOT HER (118 ITR 461 AT PAGE 477-478) (SC) WHEREIN THEIR LORDSHIPS OF HON'BLE SU PREME COURT HELD THAT THE APPEAL DOES NOT MEAN, MERE FILING OF THE MEM O OF APPEAL BUT EFFECTIVELY PURSUING THE SAME. 3. ACCORDINGLY, CONSIDERING THE PECULIAR FACTS AND CIRCU MSTANCES OF THE PRESENT CASE THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED FOR NON PROSECUTION WITH A LIBERTY TO THE ASSESSEE TO MOVE AN APPROPRIATE APPLICATION AND PRA Y FOR A RECALL OF THE ORDER ADDRESSING THE REASONS FOR NON REPRESENTAT ION ETC. ON THE DATE OF HEARING AND UNDERTAKING TO CURE THE DEFECTS ETC. SAID ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED ON THE DATE OF HEARING ITSELF. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED IN LIMINI. THIS ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 11 TH JULY, 2018. SD/- (DIVA SINGH) JUDICIAL MEMBER VEENA/POONAM(CHD) COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT TRUE COPY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI