SHRI MADAN LAL CHAUDHARY,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

However at the time of hearing, no one was present on behalf of the assessee. The appeal was passed over twice. Even in the third round, the position remained the same. Neither the assessee was present nor an adjournment petition had been placed on record. It is further seen that the Registry has pointed out a defect in regard to the payment of challan fee on 07.06.2016 which has not been cured till date. The record shows that the notice has been sent to the assessee on 19.08.2016 at the address indicated in Column No.10, has not come back unserved. Accordingly in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, It can be safely presumed that the assessee who has neither chosen to represent himself and not made any effort to cure the defect, is not serious in pursuing the appeal filed. 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.