Sh. Bachan Singh, Ludhiana V. ITO, Khanna

ITA 819/CHANDI/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6970 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 02-08-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 15-05-2017
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S K MITTALDR
• Keywords: Reasonable cause

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCHES, SMC, CHANDIGARH BEFORE MS. DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 819/CHD/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 SHRI BACHAN SINGH, VS. THE ITO, S/O SHRI NACHHATAR SINGH, WARD 1, VPO MANKI, LUDHIANA. KHANNA. PAN NO. DCAPS7576E (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY : SHRI S.K.MITTAL,DR DATE OF HEARING : 28.06.2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 02.08.2017 ORDER THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ASSAILIN G THE CORRECTNESS OF THE ORDER DATED 16.02.2017 OF CIT (APPEALS)-2 LUDHIANA PERTAINING TO 2009-10 ASSESSMENT YEAR. HOWEVER, AT THE TIME OF HEARING, NO ON E WAS PRESENT ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. THE APPEAL WAS PASSED OVER TWICE. DES PITE THIS, EVEN AFTER THE PASS OVER, NO ONE WAS PRESENT ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE NOR ANY REQUEST FOR ADJOURNMENT HAS BEEN PLACED ON RECORD. THE RECORD FUR THER SHOWS THAT IN THE APPEAL FILED ON 15.05.2017, THE REGISTRY HAS POINTED OUT VAR IOUS DEFECTS. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY REPRESENTATION OR ATTEMPT TO CURE THE DEFECTS, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED IN LIMINE AS TILL THE PASSING OF THE ORDE R, THE POSITION HAS NOT BEEN ADDRESSED. SUPPORT IS FROM THE ORDER OF THE IT AT 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 S HRI TUKOJI RAO HOLKAR VS WEALTH TAX COMMISSIONER 223 ITR 480 (MP) ETC. 2. BEFORE PARTING, IT IS APPROPRIATE TO ADD THAT IN THE EV ENTUALITY THE ASSESSEE IS ABLE TO SHOW THAT THERE WAS A REASONABLE CAUSE FOR N ON-REPRESENTATION ON THE DATE OF HEARING, IT WOULD BE AT LIBERTY TO PRAY FOR A RECALL OF THIS ORDER BY MAKING AN APPROPRIATE PRAYER. 3. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 02.08.2017. SD/- (DIVA SINGH) JUDICIAL MEMBER POONAM COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. THE DR ASSTT. RE GISTRAR/ITAT CHANDIGARH.