PATIALA IMPROVEMENT TRUST,PATIALA vs. DCIT (EXEMPTIONS), C-I, CHANDIGARH

PER DIVA SINGH,JM

The present appeal has been filed by the assessee assailing the correctness of the order dated 17.02.2017 of ld. CIT(Appeals) Patiala pertaining to 2013-14 assessment years 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. Even in the third round, neither the assessee was present nor any request for adjournment was placed on behalf of the assessee. The record shows that the Registry has pointed out various defects in the appeal filed on 19.09.2017 itself. A perusal of the same shows that one of the defects is that the appeal is delayed by 29 days. The defects remain unaddressed till date. The record shows that the appeal had come up for hearing on 15.01.2018. On the said date the appeal was adjourned on the written request of assessee's counsel as noted by the Coordinate Bench. It is further seen that the defects till date have not been cured. In these peculiar facts and circumstances in the absence of any effort on the part of the assessee to cure the defects and explain the delay, it can be safely presumed that the assessee may not be serious in pursuing the appeal filed. Support is from the order of the ITAT Delhi Benches in the case of CIT Vs Multiplan India Pvt. Ltd. (1991) 38 ITD 320 and the decision of Hon'ble

ITA 1375/CHD/2017 A.Y. 2013-14 Page 2 of 2

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.