Sh. Gurpreet Singh, Ludhiana V. ITO, W-III(2), Ludhiana

ITA 772/CHANDI/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 119 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2374 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-10-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 28-05-2018
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MANJIT SINGH SR DR

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH,CHANDIGARH , ! ' # . %.. . & , '( ' BEFORE: SMT. DIVA SINGH, JM & DR. B.R.R.KUMAR, AM ./ ITA NO. 772/CHD/2018 / A.Y : 2009-10 SHRI GURPREET SINGH, S/O SHRI HARBHAJAN SINGH, VPO THAKHARWAL, LUDHIANA. VS THE ITO, WARD-III(2), LUDHIANA. ./ PAN NO: DSHPS1197E / APPELLANT / RESPONDENT ! ' / ASSESSEE BY : NONE # ! ' / REVENUE BY : SHRI MANJIT SINGH, SR.DR $ % ! &/ DATE OF HEARING : 11.10.2018 '()* ! &/ D ATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 31.10.2018 ')/ ORDER THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ASSA ILING THE CORRECTNESS OF THE ORDER DATED 15.03.2018 OF CIT(A)-I L UDHIANA PERTAINING TO 2009-10 ASSESSMENT YEAR ON VARIOUS GROUNDS. 2. HOWEVER, AT THE TIME OF HEARING, NO ONE WAS PRESENT O N BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. THE APPEAL WAS PASSED OVER TWICE, EVEN THERE AFTER THE ASSESSEE REMAINED UNREPRESENTED. THE RECORD SHOWS THAT THE RE GISTRY HAS POINTED OUT VARIOUS DEFECTS IN FILING OF THE PRESENT APPEAL WHICH HAV E REMAINED UNADDRESSED. ACCORDINGLY, IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY REPRES ENTATION DESPITE NOTICE OR ANY EVIDENCE ON RECORD SHOWING THAT EFFORTS WE RE MADE ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE TO CURE THE DEFECTS, IT CAN BE SAFELY PRES UMED THAT THE ASSESSEE MAY NOT BE SERIOUS IN PURSUING THE APPEAL FILED. SUPPORT IS FROM THE ORDER OF THE ITAT DELHI BENCHES IN THE CASE OF CIT VS MULTIPLAN IND IA PVT. LTD. (1991) 38 ITD 320 AND THE DECISION OF HON'BLE MADHYA PRADESH H IGH 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 AND BY GIVING AN ITA 772/CHD/2018 A.Y.2009-10 PAGE 2 OF 2 UNDERTAKING TO CURE THE DEFECTS POINTED OUT BY THE REG ISTRY 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 31.10. 2018. 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. -23 4, & 4, 67839/ DR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 6. 38 :%/ GUARD FILE (+ $ / BY ORDER, ; #/ ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT,CHANDIGARH.