M/s. Vohra Foods Pvt. LTd., V. The Income-tax Officer, Ferozepur

ITA 86/ASR/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 128 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5623 (ITAT-AMRITSAR)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 2 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-04-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 17-04-2017
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 11-02-2014
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL

Judgement Text

PAGE 1 OF 2 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH; AMRITSAR (SMC) BEFORE SMT. DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 86 (ASR)/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-11 PAN: AABCV1106A M/S VOHRA FOODS PVT. LTD. MOHAN KE ROAD, MANDI GURUHARSAHAI. VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD III (1), FEROZEPUR. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: NONE RESPONDENT BY: SH. RAHUL DHAWAN, DR. DATE OF HEARING: 17.04.2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMEN T: 18.04.2017 ORDER PER DIVA SINGH (JM): THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE A SSAILING THE CORRECTNESS OF THE ORDER DATED 21.11.2013 OF CIT(A) FEROZEPUR, PERTAINING TO ASST. YEAR 2010-11 ON VARIOUS GROUNDS. 2. HOWEVER, AT THE TIME OF HEARING NO ONE WAS PRESE NT ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE, THE APPEAL WAS PASSED OVER. IN THE SECOND ROUND ALSO, NO ONE W AS PRESENT TO EXPLAIN THE REASONS JUSTIFYING THE ADJOURNMENT SOUGHT BY THE COUNSEL ON THE GROUND SINCE I NEED SOME MORE TIME AND DOCUMENTS TO PREPARE THE REPLY AS THE ACCOUNTANT OF APPELLANT IS OUT OF STATION. THE RECORD SHOWS THAT THE ASSESSEE FILED THE APPEAL ON 11 TH FEBRUARY, 2014 AND THEREAFTER IT HAS COME UP FOR HEARING ON ALMOST 24 TIMES WHEREIN APART FROM THE F ACT THAT ON VARIOUS DATES BENCH WAS NOT FUNCTIONAL IT WAS ADJOURNED EVERY TIME (I.E. ALMOST 13 TIMES) ON THE WRITTEN REQUEST OF LD. AR, IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES IF THE LD. AR STILL NEEDS TIME TO ARGUE THE APPEAL ON THE GROUNDS THAT THE DOCUMENTS HAVE NOT BEEN MADE AVAILABLE, IT CAN BE S AFELY PRESUMED THAT THE ASSESSEE MAY NOT BE SERIOUS IN PURSUING THE APPEAL FILED. ACCORDINGL Y ADJOURNMENT APPLICATION OF THE ASSESSEE IS REJECTED AND THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSE D IN LIMINE. SUPPORT IS DRAWN FROM THE ORDER, IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. MULTIPLAN INDIA LTD, REPOR TED IN 38 ITD 320 [2013] (DEL.) 3. IN THE RESULT OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED IN LI MINE AND THE DISMISSING THE APPLICATION OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 18.04.2017. SD/- (DIVA SINGH) JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 18.04.2017 ITA NO.86(ASR)/2014 ASST. YEAR 2010-11 PAGE 2 OF 2 /GP/SR.PS COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. THE ASSESSEE: 2. THE ACIT, 3. THE CIT(A), 4. THE CIT, 5. THE SR DR, I.T.A.T., TRUE COPY BY ORDER