RAJINDER NATH MAHENDRU,GAUTAM BUDH NAGAR vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

However, at the time of hearing, an adjournment application was moved by the Ld.AR stating that the appeals could not be prepared as the assessee has decided to appoint another counsel. The record shows that the assessee has executed a Power of Attorney in favour of M/s B.R.Maheshwari & Co. The record further shows that on the last occasion i.e. 29.09.2016, the said counsel had sought an adjournment stating that he has not been able to prepare the appeals. In these circumstances, in the absence of any Power of Attorney in favour of any other person and the next date of hearing having been noted by the AR’s office, the adjournment if required would have been moved by the assessee. The appointed counsel not instructed to argue and no further intimation before the ITAT from the assessee leads to the conclusion that the assessee may not be serious in pursuing the present appeals. Accordingly, the appeals of the assessee are dismissed in limine. Support is drawn from the order of the Tribunals 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 480 (M.P).

Before parting it is appropriate to add that in case 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 if so advised to pray for a recall of this order. The said order was pronounced on the date of hearing itself in the open Court.