, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH A CHANDIGARH !, ' # . %.. . & , '( # BEFORE: SMT. DIVA SINGH, JM & DR. B.R.R.KUMAR, AM ./ ITA NO. 726/CHD/2018 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2014-15 SHRI JEET PAL SINGH, HOUSE NO. 25, VIKAS VIHAR, AMBALA CITY. VS THE D CIT, CIRCLE AMBALA, HARYANA. ./ PAN NO: AQBPS0218B / APPELLANT / RESPONDENT ! / ASSESSEE BY : SHRI KULWANT SINGH ' ! / REVENUE BY : SMT. NEHA CHAUDHARY, SR.DR # $ % / DATE OF HEARING : 11.03.2019 &'() % / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 18.03.2019 ')/ ORDER PER DIVA SINGH THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ASSA ILING THE CORRECTNESS OF THE ORDER DATED 24.01.2018 OF CIT(A), PANC HKULA PERTAINING TO 2014-15 ASSESSMENT YEAR ON VARIOUS GROUNDS. 2. HOWEVER, AT THE TIME OF HEARING, AN ADJOURNMENT APPLICA TION WAS PLACED ON RECORD IN THE NAME OF SHRI KULWANT SINGH. TH E SAID APPLICATION, IT IS SEEN WAS NOT SIGNED. THIS FACT WAS POINTED OUT TO THE GENTLEMAN, HOWEVER HE FAILED TO ADDRESS IT. IT WAS ALSO PO INTED OUT THAT AS PER HIS APPLICATION, TIME IS SOUGHT ON THE PLEADING THE COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANTE IS KEEPING GOOD HEALTH AND UNDERGOING MEDICAL TREATMENT WHEREIN PROBABLY THE WORD NOT AS IN NOT KEEPING GOOD HEALTH PROBABLY WAS OMITTED BY OVERSIGHT. THESE FACTS WERE POINTED OUT TO THE GENTLEMAN IDENTIFYING HIMSELF AS THE APP LICANT. HOWEVER, HE WAS UNABLE TO ADDRESS AS TO WHY THE APPLICA TION PLACED ON RECORD WAS UNSIGNED AND ALSO ADDRESS THE APPARENT MIST AKE IN THE APPLICATION. IN THE INTERESTS OF JUSTICE PRESUMING THE INAD VERTENT MISTAKE IN THE UNSIGNED APPLICATION, THE GENTLEMAN WAS REQU IRED TO STATE WHETHER THE CLAIM OF ILLNESS OF THE UNNAMED COUNSEL W AS ITA 726/CHD//2018 A.Y. 2014-15 PAGE 2 OF 2 SUPPORTED BY ANY EVIDENCE. THE GENTLEMAN FAILED TO OFFER A NY SUBMISSION. IT WAS FURTHER POINTED OUT FROM THE RECORD FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE GENTLEMAN APPEARING IN SUPPORT OF THE UNSIGNED APP LICATION THAT THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DELAYED BY 39 DAYS AN D NOTICE TO THE SAID EFFECT HAS BEEN ISSUED BY THE REGISTRY TO THE ASSES SEE ON 06.08.2019 WHICH TILL DATE REMAIN UNADDRESSED. THE RECORD FU RTHER SHOWS THAT THE APPEAL CAME UP FOR HEARING ON 13.09.2018 ON WHICH DATE THE ASSESSEE REMAINED UNREPRESENTED. IN THE ABS ENCE OF ANY SUBMISSION WHATSOEVER ON THESE FACTS NOTING THAT THERE IS NOTHING ON RECORD EXPLAINING THE DELAY AND CONSIDERING THE UNSIGNED A PPLICATION BY A PERSON IN WHOSE FAVOUR THERE IS NO POWER OF ATTORNEY, THE ADJOURNMENT REQUEST CASUALLY MADE WAS DISMISSED HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSEE MAY NOT BE SERIOUS IN PURSUING THE APPEAL FILED A ND THE APPEAL FILED IS LIABLE TO BE DISMISSED. SUPPORT IS FROM THE ORDER OF T HE ITAT DELHI BENCHES IN THE CASE OF CIT VS MULTIPLAN INDIA PVT. LTD . (1991) 38 ITD 320 AND THE DECISION OF HON'BLE MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF LATE SHRI TUKOJI RAO HOLKAR VS WEALTH TAX COMMISS IONER 223 ITR 480 (MP) ETC. 3. BEFORE PARTING, IT IS APPROPRIATE TO ADD THAT IN THE EVE NTUALITY THE ASSESSEE IS ABLE TO SHOW THAT THERE WAS A REASONABLE C AUSE FOR NON- REPRESENTATION ON THE DATE OF HEARING, IT WOULD BE AT LIBE RTY TO PRAY FOR A RECALL OF THIS ORDER BY MAKING AN APPROPRIATE PRAYER. SAID ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT AT THE TIME OF HEARING ITSELF. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 18.03. 2019. SD/- SD/- ( . % . . . & ) ( ! ) (DR. B.R.R. KUMAR) (DIVA SINGH) '( # / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ' # / JUDICIAL MEMBER + , '* +, -, / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT - 2. / THE RESPONDENT - 3. # . / CIT 4. # . ( )/ THE CIT(A) 5. ,/0 1 , % 1 , 23405 / DR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 6. 04 6$ / GUARD FILE '* # / BY ORDER, 7 ' / ASSISTANT REGISTRAR