Jaswinder Singh, Chandigarh V. ACIT, Chandigarh

ITA 959/CHANDI/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6522 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 11-12-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 09-06-2017
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCHES, SMC, CHANDIGARH BEFORE MS. DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO 959/CHD/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2011-12 SHRI JASWINDER SINGH, VS. THE ACIT, CHANDIGARH. CIRCLE 2(1), PAN NO. APBPS0602Q CHANDIGARH. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY : SMT. CHANDER KANTA, SR.DR DATE OF HEARING : 11.10.2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 11.12.2017 ORDER THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ASSA ILING THE CORRECTNESS OF THE ORDER DATED 03.03.2017 OF LD. CIT (APPE ALS)-2 AMRITSAR CAMP AT CHANDIGARH PERTAINING TO 2011-12 ASSESSMENT YE AR ON VARIOUS GROUNDS. 2. HOWEVER, AT THE TIME OF HEARING, NO ONE WAS PRESENT O N BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. THE APPEAL WAS PASSED OVER TWICE. DESPITE TH AT, NONE WAS PRESENT. RECORD SHOWS THAT THE REGISTRY HAS ISSUED A DEFECT NOT ICE TO THE ASSESSEE ON 21.06.2017. DESPITE THIS, THE DEFECT REMAINS UN-CURED. IT I S FURTHER SEEN THAT THE HEARING IN THE PRESENT APPEAL CAME IN RESPONSE TO N OTICE HAVING BEEN ISSUED ON 07.09.2017 AT THE ADDRESS MENTIONED IN COLUMN N O. 10 IN THE MEMO OF APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE SAME HAS NOT BEEN RETURNED UNSERVED. SERVICE OF NOTICE IS DEEMED TO BE COMPLETE ON THE ASSESSEE. IT IS FURTHER SEEN THAT ON THE LAST DATE OF HEARING I.E. 07.09.201 7, THE APPEAL WAS ADJOURNED FOR WANT OF TIME WHEREIN DESPITE THE ISSUANCE O F NOTICE DATED 04.08.2017 ALSO, THE ASSESSEE REMAINED UNREPRESENTED. 3. IN THESE PECULIAR FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, IT CAN BE SA FELY PRESUMED THAT ASSESSEE IS NOT SERIOUS IN PURSUING THE APPEAL FILED. SUPPORT IS FROM THE ORDER OF THE ITAT DELHI BENCHES IN THE CASE OF CIT VS M ULTIPLAN INDIA PVT. LTD. (1991) 38 ITD 320 AND THE DECISION OF HON'BLE MADHYA PRAD ESH HIGH COURT IN ITA 959/CHD/2017 A.Y. 2011-12 PAGE 2 OF 2 THE CASE OF LATE SHRI TUKOJI RAO HOLKAR VS WEALTH TAX C OMMISSIONER 223 ITR 480 (MP) ETC. 4. 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 AND GIVING AN UNDERTAKING TO CURE THE DEFECT POINTED OUT BY THE REGISTRY. SAID ORDER WAS PRONOU NCED IN THE OPEN COURT AT THE TIME OF HEARING ITSELF. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 11 TH DECEMBER2017. 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.