General Manager, Patiala V. JCIT (TDS), Chandigarh

ITA 960/CHANDI/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 130 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8305 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 22 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-02-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 04-01-2017
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 01-09-2016
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MANJIT SINGH
• Keywords: Reasonable cause; TDS
• Section: 32; 147; 131; 68; 246; 69; 145; 27; 148; 54; 37; 6; 56; 263; 63; 132; 12; 28; 144; 10; 90; 154; 2; 11; 15; 271(1)(b); 139; 92

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCHES: SMC, CHANDIGARH BEFORE MS. DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.960/CHD/2016 (ASSESSMENT YEAR-2011-12) GENERAL MANAGER, DISTRICT INDUSTRIES, CENTRE, SIRHIND ROAD, PATIALA. PAN-PTLD11277A ( APPELLANT) VS ADDL.CIT(TDS), CHANDIGARH (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY NONE REVENUE BY SHRI MANJIT SINGH, SR.DR DATE OF HEARING 02.02.2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 23.02.2017 ORDER THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ASSAILING THE CORRECTNESS OF THE ORDER DATED 30.6.2016 OF CIT(APPEALS), PATIA LA PERTAINING TO 2011-12 ASSESSMENT YEAR ON VARIOUS GROUNDS. HOWEVER, AT TH E TIME OF HEARING NO ONE WAS PRESENT ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE DESPITE ISSUANCE OF NOTICE ON 3.1.2017. THE APPEAL WAS PASSED OVER. IN THE SECOND ROUND ALSO N O ONE WAS PRESENT. THE RECORD SHOWS THAT THE APPEAL IS DEFECTIVE. NOT ONLY THE V ARIOUS DEFECTS POINTED OUT AS PER COLUMN NOS.4, 5, 8, 10, 12 AND 16 EVEN THE SHORTAG E IN TRIBUNAL FEE POINTED OUT BY THE REGISTRY TILL DATE REMAINS NOT CURED. THE RECO RD SHOWS THAT ON THE LAST DATE OF HEARING THE APPEAL WAS ADJOURNED ON THE REQUEST OF THE COUNSEL. IT IS FURTHER SEEN THAT THE APPEAL FILED ON 1.9.2016 CAME UP FOR HEARI NG ON 5.10.2016 ON WHICH DATE IT WAS ADJOURNED ON THE REQUEST OF THE ASSESSEE. SIMI LARLY, ON THE NEXT DATE, I.E. 25.10.2016, IT WAS AGAIN ADJOURNED ON THE REQUEST O F THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY, IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, IT CAN BE SAFELY PRESUMED THAT T HE ASSESSEE IS NOT SERIOUS IN PURSUING THE APPEAL FILED AS DESPITE SEEKING ADJOUR NMENT THE COUNSEL HAS NOT BEEN PRESENT. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS DISMISSED IN LIMINE. SUPPORT IS DRAWN FROM THE ORDER OF 2 THE TRIBUNAL IN CIT VS. MULTIPLAN INDIA (P) LTD., 38 ITD 320 (DEL) AND ESTATE OF LATE TUKOJIRAO HOLKAR VS.CWT, 223 ITR 480 (MP) . 2. BEFORE PARTING, IT IS APPROPRIATE TO ADD THAT I N CASE THE ASSESSEE IS ABLE TO SHOW THAT THERE WAS A REASONABLE CAUSE FOR NON-REPR ESENTATION ON THE DATE OF HEARING, IT WOULD BE AT LIBERTY, IF SO ADVISED, TO PRAY FOR RECALL OF THIS ORDER UNDERTAKING THE DEFECTS, POINTED OUT BY THE REGISTR Y, SHALL BE CURED. THE SAID ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED ON THE DATE OF HEARING ITSELF IN THE OPEN COURT. 3. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DIS MISSED IN LIMINE. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 23 RD FEBRUARY, 2017. SD/- (DIVA SINGH) JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 23 RD FEBRUARY, 2017 *RATI* COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT(A) 4. THE CIT 5. THE DR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH