Saurabh Gupta, Chandigarh V. ITO, Chandigarh

ITA 898/CHANDI/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6720 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-10-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 31-05-2017
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MANJIT SINGH

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCHES, SMC, CHANDIGARH BEFORE MS. DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO 898/CHD/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2013-14 SHRI SAURABH GUPTA, VS. THE ITO, H.NO. 2191, SECTOR 38-C, WARD 4(1), CHANDIGARH. CHANDIGARH. PAN NO. AGSPG5192R (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : NONE (APPLICATION REJECTED) RESPONDENT BY : SHRI MANJIT SINGH, SR.DR DATE OF HEARING : 03.08.2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 31.10.2017 ORDER THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ASSA ILING THE CORRECTNESS OF THE ORDER DATED 20.03.2017 OF LD. CIT (APPE ALS)-2 CHANDIGARH PERTAINING TO 2013-14 ASSESSMENT YEAR. 2. HOWEVER, AN ADJOURNMENT APPLICATION WAS PLACED ON REC ORD BY SHRI VINEET AGARWAL, CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT. SINCE THE APPLICATIO N DID NOT MENTION ANY SPECIFIC REASON AS TO WHY ADJOURNMENT IS BEING SOUGH T, THE COUNSEL PRESENT IN SUPPORT OF THE APPLICATION WAS REQUIRED TO ADD RESS THE SAME. THE COUNSEL MERELY REPEATED THAT TIME IS SOUGHT. NO REASON S FOR THE REQUEST FOR TIME WERE ADVANCED. THE CONTENTS OF THE ADJOURNMENT APPLICATION WERE READ OUT FOR HIS BENEFIT. THE SAME IS REPRODUCED HEREUNDER : SIR, THIS IS WITH REFERENCE TO ABOVE MENTIONED CASE. AP PEAL FOR THE ABOVEMENTIONED CASE WAS FIXED FOR HEARING ON 03.08. 2017 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMC, CHANDIGARH. IT IS REQUESTED THAT CASE MAY PLEASE BE ADJOURNED T O SOME LATER DATE. 2.1 IT WAS ALSO BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF THE COUNSEL T HAT THE REGISTRY HAS POINTED OUT A DEFECT IN THE TRIBUNAL FEE AND INFACT NO POW ER OF ATTORNEY HAS ALSO BEEN EXECUTED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ANY ONES FAVOUR . THE COUNSEL PRESENT, IN SUPPORT OF THE APPLICATION DID NOT MAKE ANY FURTHER SUB MISSION. IN THESE PECULIAR FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY P OWER OF ATTORNEY HAVING BEEN EXECUTED BY THE ASSESSEE, WHERE EVEN THE DEFECTS HAVE NOT BEEN ITA/898/CHD/2017 A.Y 2013-14 PAGE 2 OF 2 CURED TILL DATE AND MOREOVER, NO SPECIFIC REASONS HAVE BEE N SPELT OUT IN THE ADJOURNMENT APPLICATION, IT IS DEEMED APPROPRIATE TO REJEC T THE ADJOURNMENT APPLICATION MOVED LEADS TO THE INDELIBLE CONCLUSION THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT SERIOUS IN PURSUING THE APPEAL FILED. ACCORDINGLY, THE ADJO URNMENT APPLICATION WAS REJECTED AND THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE DISMISSED IN LIMINE. SUPPORT IS FROM THE ORDER OF THE ITAT DELHI BENCHES IN TH E 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 TU KOJI RAO HOLKAR VS WEALTH TAX COMMISSIONER 223 ITR 480 (MP) ETC. 3. BEFORE PARTING, IT IS APPROPRIATE TO ADD THAT IN THE EV ENTUALITY 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 GIVING AN UNDERTAKING TO CURE THE DEFECT POINTED OUT BY THE REGISTRY. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 31 ST OCTOBER,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. REGISTRAR ITAT,CHANDIGARH.