The Pathiar Co-op Agri. Service Society, Kangra V. Income Tax Officer, Dharamashala

ITA 926/CHANDI/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6674 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 01-11-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 02-06-2017
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PAWAN KUMAR SHARMASR

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCHES, SMC, CHANDIGARH BEFORE MS. DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 926/CHD/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2013-14 THE PATHIAR CO-OP. AGRI SERVICE SOCIETY, VS . THE ITO, PATHIAR, DISTT.KANGRA. DHARAMSHALA. PAN NO. AADAT5483A (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY : SHRI PAWAN KUMAR SHARMA,SR.DR DATE OF HEARING : 26.09.2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 01.11.2017 ORDER THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ASSA ILING THE CORRECTNESS OF THE ORDER DATED 06.03.2017 OF CIT (APPEALS ) PALAMPUR PERTAINING TO 2013-14 ASSESSMENT YEAR. 2. HOWEVER, AT THE TIME OF HEARING, NO ONE WAS PRESENT O N BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. THE APPEAL WAS PASSED OVER TWICE. DESPITE THI S, NEITHER THE ASSESSEE WAS PRESENT NOR ANY REQUEST WAS PLACED ON B EHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. THE RECORD SHOWS THAT THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ON 02.06.2017.. IT IS FURTHER SEEN THAT VARIOUS DEFECTS HAV E BEEN POINTED OUT BY THE REGISTRY IN THE PRESENT APPEAL WHICH TILL DATE, REMAINED NOT CU RED. IT IS SEEN THAT NOTICE FOR THE SPECIFIC DATE OF HEARING HAD BE EN SENT TO THE ADDRESS MENTIONED IN COLUMN NO. 10 OF FORM NO. 36 TO THE ASSESSEE ON 04.09.2017 WHICH HAS NOT COME BACK UNSERVED. IN THESE PECULIAR FAC TS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, IT CAN BE SAFELY PRESUMED THAT THE ASSES SEE MAY NOT BE SERIOUS IN PURSUING THE APPEAL FILED. SUPPORT IS FROM THE ORD ER OF THE ITAT DELHI BENCHES IN THE CASE OF CIT VS MULTIPLAN INDIA PVT. LT D. (1991) 38 ITD 320 AND THE DECISION OF HON'BLE MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COUR T IN THE CASE OF LATE SHRI TUKOJI RAO HOLKAR VS WEALTH TAX COMMISSIONER 223 ITR 48 0 (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 ITA 926/CHD/2017 A.Y. 2013-14 PAGE 2 OF 2 ON THE DATE OF HEARING, IT WOULD BE AT LIBERTY TO PRAY FOR A RECALL OF THIS ORDER BY MAKING AN APPROPRIATE PRAYER AND GIVING AN UNDERTAKIN G TO CURE THE DEFECT POINTED OUT BY THE REGISTRY. SAID ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT AT THE TIME OF HEARING ITSELF. 4. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 01.11. 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.