Sh. Gurpal Singh Brar, Mohali V. ITO, Mohali

ITA 934/CHANDI/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6790 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 10 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-10-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 15-02-2017
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 03-10-2013
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH A, CHANDIGARH BEFORE MS. DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MS. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 934/CHD/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006-07 SHRI GURPAL SINGH BRAR, VS. THE ITO, #2100, PHASE-X, WARD 6(1), MOHALI. MOHALI. PAN NO. AAUPB5362N (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY : SMT.CHANDER KANTA, CIT-DR DATE OF HEARING : 20.09.2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 13.10.2017 ORDER PER DIVA SINGH,JM THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AS SAILING THE CORRECTNESS OF THE ORDER DATED 24.07.2013 OF CIT(A) CHAN DIGARH PERTAINING TO 2006-07 ASSESSMENT YEAR. 2. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, AN ADJOURNMENT APPLICATION WAS PLACED ON RECORD BY SHRI RAJIV SHARMA SEEKING TIME TO PREPARE. THE RECORD SHOWS THAT THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ON 03.10.2013 . APART FROM THE DATES WHEN THE BENCH WAS NOT FUNCTIONAL, IT IS SEEN THAT RIGHT FROM 12.01.2015 ON EACH OF THE OCCASIONS WHEN THE APPEAL CAME UP FOR HEARING, IT W AS ADJOURNED ON THE REQUEST OF THE ASSESSEE'S COUNSEL. EVEN ON THE LAST DATE I.E. 01.08.2017, THE APPEAL WAS ADJOURNED ON THE REQUEST OF THE COUNSEL. THESE FAC TS WERE CONFRONTED TO THE LD. AR SHRI RAJIV SHARMA WHO PLEADED FOR ONE MORE OPP ORTUNITY. CONSIDERING THE ABOVE MENTIONED BACKGROUND OF THE C ASE WHERE REPEATEDLY ADJOURNMENTS HAVE BEEN GRANTED WHERE IT WAS POINTED OUT THAT INFACT, NO POWER OF ATTORNEY HAS BEEN EXECUTED BY THE ASSESSEE IN FA VOUR OF ANY COUNSEL, THE LD. AR WAS UNABLE TO EXPLAIN THE SAME. ACCORDINGLY, IN THESE PECULIAR FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES , GRANT OF ANY MORE TIME ON THE REQUEST OF COUNSEL IN FACT S WHERE THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT EXECUTED POWER OF ATTORNE Y IN FAVOUR OF ANY COUNSEL, IT WOULD BE A WASTE OF GOVERNMENT TIME AND MACHINE RY. ADJOURNMENT REQUEST, ACCORDINGLY WAS REJECTED AND THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED IN ITA 934/CHD/2013 A.Y. 2006-07 PAGE 2 OF 2 LIMINE. SUPPORT IS FROM THE ORDER OF THE I TAT DELHI BENCHES IN THE CASE OF CIT VS MULTIPLAN INDIA PVT. LTD. (1991) 38 ITD 320 AND THE DECISION OF HON'BLE MADHYA PRAD ESH HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF LATE SHRI TUKOJI RAO HOLKAR VS WEALTH TAX C OMMISSIONER 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. SAID 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 13 TH OCT,2017. SD/- SD/- (ANNAPURNA GUPTA) (DIVA SIN GH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER 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.