Sanjay Kumar, Ahmedgarh. V. ITO, Malerkotla

ITA 93/CHANDI/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 128 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5098 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 28 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 07-06-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 10-01-2017
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MANJIT SINGHDR

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCHES, SMC, CHANDIGARH BEFORE MS. DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.93/CHD/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 20 12-13 SHRI SANJAY KUMAR, VS. THE ITO, PROP. YAMUNA FERTILIZERS, WARD 2, C/O WALAITI RAM JAGAN NATH, MALERKOTLA. GRAIN MARKET, AHMEDGRH-148021. PAN NO. ACJPK7136Q (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY : SHRI MANJIT SINGH,DR DATE OF HEARING : 08.05.2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 07.06.2017 ORDER THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ASSA ILING THE CORRECTNESS OF THE ORDER DATED 19.10.2016 OF CIT (APPEA LS)-2 LUDHIANA PERTAINING TO 2012-13 ASSESSMENT YEAR ON VARIOUS GROUN DS. HOWEVER, AT THE TIME OF HEARING, NO ONE WAS PRESENT ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. THE APPEAL WAS PASSED OVER. IN THE SECOND ROUND ALSO, THE POSITION REMAINED THE SAME. 2. THE RECORD SHOWS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE AP PEAL ON 10.01.2017 AND IT CAME UP FOR HEARING FOR THE FIRST TIME ON 02.03.2017. ON THE SAID DATE, IT WAS ADJOURNED ON THE REQUEST OF THE A SSESSEE. THE ADJOURNMENT WAS GRANTED AND APPEAL WAS LISTED FOR NEXT HEARING ON 05.04.2017. ON THE SAID DATE ALSO, THE ASSESSEE SOUGHT A DJOURNMENT WHICH WAS GRANTED AND THE APPEAL ACCORDINGLY CAME UP FOR HEARING ON 08.05.2017. ON THE SAID DATE, NEITHER THE ASSESSEE WAS P RESENT NOR HAS THE ASSESSEE CARED TO MOVE AN APPLICATION NOR CAUSED ANY A PPEARANCE OF ANYONE ON HIS BEHALF. IN THE AFOREMENTIONED PECULIAR FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, IT CAN BE SAFELY PRESUMED THAT THE ASSES SEE MAY NOT BE SERIOUS IN PURSUING THE APPEAL FILED. THUS, ADJOURNING THE C ASE TO ANOTHER DATE, IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, WOULD AMOUNT TO WASTE OF GOVE RNMENT TIME AND MACHINERY. SUPPORT IS FROM THE ORDER OF THE ITAT DELHI BE NCHES IN THE CASE OF CIT VS MULTIPLAN INDIA PVT. LTD. (1991) 38 ITD 320 AND TH E DECISION OF 2 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. 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. SA ID ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT AT THE TIME OF HEARING ITSELF. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 7 TH JUNE,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.