Sh. Jeet Pal Singh, Ambala City V. DCIT, Ambala

ITA 947/CHANDI/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 119 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2502 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 2 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-10-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: Not Allotted
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 24-08-2016
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: CHANDRA KANTA
• Keywords: Reasonable cause

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BEN CH A, CHANDIGARH , . '.., # $, %& BEFORE: SH. SANJAY GARG, JM & DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, AM ITA NO. 947/CHD/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2013-14 SHRI JEET PAL SINGH H.NO. 25, VIKAS VIHAR AMBALA CITY, HARYANA THE DY. CIT CIRCLE AMBALA HARYANA PAN NO: AQBPS0218B APPELLANT RESPONDENT !' ASSESSEE BY : NONE #!' REVENUE BY : SMT. CHANDRAKANTA $ %! & DATE OF HEARING : 11/09/2018 '()*! & DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 31/10/2018 %'/ ORDER PER DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, A.M THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE A GAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A), PANCHKULA DT. 14/07/2016. 2. BRIEF HISTORY OF THE CASE WAS THAT THE ASSESSEE FILED APPEAL ON 24/08/2016 AND THE SAME WAS DISMISSED FOR NON PROSECUTION OF T HE APPEAL VIDE ORDER DT. 06/12/2016. LATER OWING TO THE MISC. APPLICATION OF THE ASSESSEE ON 20/01/2017 THE CASE WAS HEARD AND THE ORDER DT. 06/12/2016 WAS RECALLED ON 11/10/2017, RESTORING THE ORIGINAL APPEAL. 3. THE RECORD SHOWS THAT THE APPEAL WAS FIXED FOR H EARING BEFORE THE BENCH THRICE. AT THE TIME OF HEARING TODAY I.E; 11/09/20 18, NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. THE NOTICE OF HEARING WAS SENT TO THE ASSESSEE, BUT THERE WAS NO COMPLIANCE ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. EVEN NO APPLI CATION SEEKING ADJOURNMENT WAS FILED. IT CAN BE SAFELY PRESUMED TH AT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT SERIOUS IN PURSUING THE APPEAL FILED. SUPPORT IS FROM THE O RDER OF THE ITAT DELHI BENCHES IN THE CASE OF CIT VS MULTIPLAN INDIA PVT. LTD. (19 91) 38 ITD 320 AND THE DECISION OF HON'BLE MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF LATE SHRI TUKOJI RAO HOLKAR VS WEALTH TAX COMMISSIONER 223 ITR 480 (MP) ETC. 4. BEFORE PARTING, IT IS APPROPRIATE TO ADD THAT IN THE EVENTUALITY THE ASSESSEE IS ABLE TO SHOW THAT THERE WAS A REASONABLE CAUSE F OR NON-REPRESENTATION ON THE 2 DATE OF HEARING, IT WOULD BE AT LIBERTY TO PRAY FOR A RECALL OF THIS ORDER BY MAKING AN APPROPRIATE PRAYER. SAID ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED I N THE OPEN COURT AT THE TIME OF HEARING ITSELF. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DIS MISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT. SD/- SD/- . '.., # $, (SANJAY GARG ) ( DR. B.R.R. KUM AR, AM) / JUDICIAL MEMBER %& / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AG DATE 31/10/2018 (+! ,-.- COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. $ / CIT 4. $ / 01 THE CIT(A) 5. -2 45&456789 DR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 6. 8:% GUARD FILE