9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (9) TMI 619X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ld. Counsel for the assessee, Shri Jamir Ahmed along with Shri A. Sathe appeared and the application was again taken up for hearing. When the ld. Counsel for the assessee was asked for non-appearance on earlier occasion, it was merely stated that it was the fault of the earlier counsel. Regarding the present application, nothing was explained by the assessee regarding non-appearance and the ld. Counsel for the assessee merely said "I have nothing to say". The learned CIT DR strongly asserted that since beginning the assessee is very casual in its approach, therefore, no leniency is required especially when the assessee has not adduced any reason for his non-appearance on the appointed dates and time. 3. We have considered the submissions a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... te of service of notice and the appeal was adjourned to 14th December, 2009. On 14.12.23009 the assessee again requested for adjournment and the appeal was adjourned to 25.2.2010. On that date nobody appeared on behalf of the assessee and the appeal was adjourned to 17th May, 2010. On that date also, the assessee sought adjournment. Finally, on 30.12.2010 nobody appeared for the assessee and the appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution. 4. Against the dismissal, the assessee filed miscellaneous petition for restoration of the appeal. The miscellaneous petition was fixed for hearing for 16.9.2011 for which registered AD notice was sent to the assessee which was duly served as is evident from postal acknowledgement. On 16.9.2011 also nobody ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessee, therefore, we are constrained to dismiss the miscellaneous application of the assessee. During hearing, the learned CIT DR also relied on the decision in CIT vs. ITAT and others; 196 ITR 640 to the effect that for repeated failure, no leniency is required. The learned CIT DR also contended that the miscellaneous application against miscellaneous application is otherwise not maintainable. Without going into much deliberation and the facts narrated hereinabove, it is clearly the casual approach of the assessee, therefore, we find no merit in the second application of the assessee, therefore, it is dismissed, especially when the assessee had nothing to say even when opportunity was granted in spite of above facts. Finally, the mis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
