Vijay Kumar Jain, Delhi v. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 6242/DEL/2014 | 2011-2012
Pronouncement Date: 28-10-2016 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 624220114 RSA 2014
Assessee PAN AAAPJ0874D
Bench Delhi
Appeal Number ITA 6242/DEL/2014
Duration Of Justice 1 year(s) 11 month(s) 14 day(s)
Appellant Vijay Kumar Jain, Delhi
Respondent ITO, New Delhi
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 28-10-2016
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted SMC 1
Tribunal Order Date 28-10-2016
Date Of Final Hearing 07-09-2016
Next Hearing Date 07-09-2016
Assessment Year 2011-2012
Appeal Filed On 14-11-2014
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: SMC-1 NEW DELHI BEFORE SMT DIVA SINGH JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A .NO.-6242/DEL/2014 (ASSESSMENT YEAR-2011-12) VIJAY KUMAR JAIN 621/9 VISHWAS NAGAR (CHOWK 18 QRT) SHAHDARA DELHI-110032. PAN-AAAPJ0874D ( APPELLANT) VS ITO WARD-29(2) NEW DELHI. (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY SH.RAJEEV K.DEORA ADV. & SH.PRINCE MOHAN SINHA ADV. REVENUE BY SH.ANIL SHARMA SR.DR ORDER THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE A SSAILING THE CORRECTNESS OF THE ORDER DATED 12.09.2014 OF THE CIT(A)-XXV NE W DELHI PERTAINING TO 2011-12 ON VARIOUS GROUNDS. 2. HOWEVER AT THE TIME OF HEARING AN ADJOURNMENT P ETITION WAS MOVED ON BEHALF OF THE LD.AR PLEADING INABILITY TO ARGUE AS HE WAS OUT OF STATION. THE RECORD SHOWS THAT NO POWER OF ATTORNEY HAS BEEN FILED ON B EHALF OF THE COUNSEL SEEKING ADJOURNMENT. IT IS FURTHER SEEN THAT THE COUNSEL S OUGHT AN ADJOURNMENT ON 30.08.2016 WHICH WAS GRANTED AND IT WAS POINTED OUT THAT THE DEFECT POINTED BY THE REGISTRY ON 23.04.2015 TILL DATE HAS NOT BEEN C URED. THE LD.AR WAS UNABLE TO ADDRESS THE POSITION. THE RECORD SHOWS THAT NOTICE SENT TO THE ASSESSEE HAS COME BACK UNSERVED WITH THE COMMENT IS PATTE PE IS NAAM SE KOI VYAKTI NI HAI ATTAH WAPAS ON 31.05.2016. THUS WHERE NEITHER DEFECT I S CURED NOR THE NOTICE IS BEING RECEIVED AND THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT AUTHORIZED ANYON E TO APPEAR FOR HIM NOR CHOSEN TO APPEAR IT CAN BE SAFELY PRESUMED THAT T HE ASSESSEE IS NOT SERIOUS IN PURSUING THE PRESENT APPEAL. ACCORDINGLY THE ONLY ALTERNATIVE LEFT IS TO DISMISS THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IN LIMINE. SUPPORT IS DRAWN FROM THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNALS DATE OF HEARING 07.09.2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 28.10.2016 I.T.A .NO.-6242/DEL/2014 PAGE 2 OF 2 IN COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX VS. MULTI PLAN INDIA (P) LTD.; 38 ITD 320 (DEL) AND ESTATE OF LATE TUKOJIRAO HOLKAR VS. CWT: 223 ITR 48 0 (M.P). THE SAID ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED ON THE DATE OF HEARING ITSELF IN THE OPE N COURT. 3. BEFORE PARTING IT IS APPROPRIATE TO ADD THAT IN CAS E 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 PR AY FOR A RECALL OF THIS ORDER. THE SAID ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED ON THE DATE OF HEARING IT SELF IN THE OPEN COURT. 4. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DIS MISSED. THE ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 28 TH OF OCTOBER 2016. SD/- (DIVA SIN GH) JUDICIAL MEMBER *AMIT KUMAR* COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT ASSI STANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI