Sukumar Rajagopalan, New Delhi V. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 719/DEL/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 121 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4190 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-10-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 18-05-2017
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 10-02-2016
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Reasonable cause

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: SMC-1 NEW DELHI BEFORE SMT DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A .NO.-718 & 719/DEL/2016 (ASSESSMENT YEAR-2006-07 & 2007-08) SUKUMAR RAJAGOPALAN, 1516, 2 ND FLOOR, KOTLA MUBARAKPUR, NEW DELHI-110024. PAN-AAGPR6405G ( APPELLANT) VS ACIT, CIRCLE-26(1), CIVIC CENTRE, NEW DELHI. (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY NONE R EVENUE BY SH.ANIL SHARMA, SR.DR ORDER BOTH THESE APPEALS HAVE BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ASSAILING THE CORRECTNESS OF THE ORDER DATED 26.11.2015 OF THE CI T(A)-15, DELHI PERTAINING TO 2006-07 & 2007-08 AYS ON VARIOUS GROUNDS. 2. AN ADJOURNMENT PETITION WAS MOVED BY THE ASSESSE E STATING THAT THE COUNSEL IS OUT OF STATION. IT IS FURTHER SEEN THAT THE DEFECT POINTED OUT BY THE REGISTRY ON 17.03.2016 TILL DATE HAS NOT BEEN CURED . THE APPEAL WAS PASSED OVER TWICE. EVEN IN THE THIRD ROUND, NO ONE WAS PR ESENT TO ADDRESS WHY THE DEFECT POINTED OUT BY THE REGISTRY ON 17.03.2016 TI LL DATE HAS NOT BEEN CURED. IN THE PECULIAR FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE PRESENT CASE, IT CAN BE SAFELY PRESUMED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT SERIOUS IN PURSU ING THE PRESENT APPEALS. THUS, IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY EFFECTIVE REPRESENTATIO N, THE ONLY ALTERNATIVE LEFT IS TO DISMISS THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE IN LIMINE. SUPPORT IS DRAWN FROM THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNALS IN COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TA X VS. MULTI PLAN INDIA (P) LTD.; 38 ITD 320 (DEL) AND ESTATE OF LATE TUKOJIRAO HOLKAR VS. 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 AND UNDERTAKING THAT THE DEFECT SHALL BE CU RED WOULD THEN 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. DATE OF HEARING 06.09.2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 21.10.2016 I.T .A .NO.-718 & 719/DEL/2016 PAGE 2 OF 2 4. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE D ISMISSED. THE ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 21 ST OF OCTOBER, 2016. SD/- (DIVA SINGH) JUDI CIAL MEMBER *AMIT KUMAR* COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTA NT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI