Sh. Susheel Kumar Sharma, Una V. ITO, Una

ITA 928/CHANDI/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6524 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 11-12-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 05-06-2017
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: TEJ MOHAN SINGHPROXY

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCHES, SMC, CHANDIGARH BEFORE MS. DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 928/CHD/2017 ASSESSMENT YEA R : 2009-10 SHRI SUSHEEL KUMAR SHARMA, VS. THE ITO, PROP. M/S SUN HILL PHOTO STORE, UNA. NANGAL ROAD, UNA. PAN NO. ABUPS4613A (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI TEJ MOHAN SINGH (PROXY COUNSEL) RESPONDENT BY : SMT.CHANDER KANTA, SR.DR DATE OF HEARING : 14.11.2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 11.12.2017 ORDER THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ASS AILING THE CORRECTNESS OF THE ORDER DATED 30.03.2017 OF LD. CIT (APPE ALS) PALAMPUR PERTAINING TO 2008-09 ASSESSMENT YEAR. 2. HOWEVER, AT THE TIME OF HEARING, AN ADJOURNMENT APPLICA TION WAS MOVED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. SHRI TEJ MOHAN SINGH, APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE LD. AR AS PROXY COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT TIME IS SOUGHT IN ORDER TO PREPARE A PAPER BOOK. HOWEVER, ON THE PERUS AL OF THE MATERIAL ON RECORD, IT IS SEEN THAT THE REGISTRY HAS POINTED OUT A D EFECT ON 21.06.2017 IN REGARD TO THE FILING OF THE PRESENT APPEAL, WHEREIN A DE FECT QUA THE TRIBUNAL FEE HAS BEEN POINTED OUT. SPECIFIC OPPORTUNITY TO ADDRESS THE DEFECT WAS PROVIDED TO THE ASSESSEE ON 28.09.2017 ON WH ICH DATE, THE APPEAL CAME UP FOR HEARING AND AN ADJOURNMENT WAS SOUG HT. DESPITE THIS GRANT OF TIME TO CURE THE DEFECT, NO EFFORTS HAVE BEEN TA KEN BY THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY, IN THE PECULIAR FACTS AND CIRCUMST ANCES OF THE CASE, IT CAN BE SAFELY PRESUMED THAT THE ASSESSEE MAY NOT BE SERIOUS IN PURSUING THE APPEAL FILED. SUPPORT IS FROM THE ORDER OF T HE ITAT DELHI BENCHES IN THE CASE OF CIT VS MULTIPLAN INDIA PVT. LTD. (199 1) 38 ITD 320 AND THE DECISION OF HON'BLE MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF ITA-928/CHD/2017 A.Y 2009-10 PAGE 2 OF 2 LATE SHRI TUKOJI RAO HOLKAR VS WEALTH TAX COMMISSIONER 22 3 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 LIBER TY 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 11 TH DECEMBER,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