Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Jaipur
Vinod Singh, Jaipur vs Ito, Jaipur on 7 April, 2017
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,
JAIPUR BENCHES (SMC), JAIPUR
BEFORE: SMT. DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER
ITA No. 454/JP/2015
Assessment Year : 2010-11
Shri Vinod Singh, Vs. I.T.O., Ward
P.No. 13-14, Om Colony, Delhi By 5(1), Jaipur.
Pass, Jai Singh Pura, Khore,
Jaipur-302002.
PAN/GIR No. ANW[S6841C
Appellant Respondent
Assessee by : None.
Revenue by : Shri R.A. Verma (Addl.CIT)
Date of Hearing: 21/03/2017
Date of Pronouncement: 7th April, 2017
ORDER
PER: DIVA SINGH. J.M. The present appeal has been filed by the assessee assailing the correctness of the order dated 30.01.2015 of CIT (Appeals)-2, Jaipur pertaining to 2010-11 assessment year on various grounds.
2. However, at the time of hearing, no one was present on behalf of the assessee. The appeal was passed over twice. In the third round also, neither the assessee was present nor any request for adjournment has been received. The record shows that appeal has been filed on 7th May,2015 and has come up for hearing on atleast ten different occasions. It first came up for hearing on 15.03.2016. On that day, none appeared on behalf of the assessee. Thereafter, the appeal came up for hearing on 04.05.2016, 07.06.2016, 27.07.2016, 29.08.2016, 21.11.2016, 30.12.2016, 08.02.2017 and on each of these occasions, time was sought on one ground or the other. It is seen that the adjournments given by co-ordinate Benches on different dates in good faith have not been fairly used by the assessee. Since more than sufficient time has been given to the assessee and without getting into the issue of costs involved to the treasury, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed in-limine as it appears that the assessee may not be serious 2 in pursuing the appeal filed. Support is drawn from the decision of ITAT Delhi Benches in the case of CIT Vs Multiplan India Pvt. Ltd. (1991) 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.
3. Before parting, it is appropriate to add that in the eventuality the assessee is able to show that there was a reasonable cause for non-representation on the date of hearing, it would be at liberty 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 pronounced in the Open Court at the time of hearing itself.
4. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed in limine.
Order pronounced in the Open Court on 7th April,2017.
Sd/-
(DIVA SINGH) JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated 7 t h Apr il, 2017.
Ganesh/Poonam(CHD) Copy to:
1. The Appellant
2. The Respondent
3. The CIT
4. The CIT(A)
5. The DR Asstt. Registrar ITAT,Jaipur.