The Institute of Correctional Administration, Chandigarh V. CIT II, Chandigarh

ITA 1049/CHANDI/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 90152 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 6 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-05-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 19-09-2016
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 18-11-2013
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: JYOTI KUMARI
• Section: 12AA

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCH B CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI T.R.SOOD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 1049/CHD/2013 (ORDER UNDER SECTION 12AA ) THE INSTITUTE OF V THE CIT-II, CORRECTIONAL ADMINISTRATION, CHANDIGARH. SECTOR 26, CHANDIGARH. PAN: AAAJI0166R (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY : SMT. JYOTI KUMARI DATE OF HEARING : 21.05.2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 21.05.2015 O R D E R PER BHAVNESH SAINI,JM THIS APPEAL BY ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORD ER OF LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-II CHANDIGARH DATED 18.0 9.2013 REJECTING THE APPLICATION FOR REGISTRATION UNDER SE CTION 12AA OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. 2. EARLIER WHEN THE APPEAL WAS TAKEN UP FOR HEARING , THE ASSESSEE WAS DIRECTED TO FILE CONCISE GROUNDS OF AP PEAL. THEREAFTER, NOTICES WERE ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE AND ON THE DATE OF HEARING ON 21.05.2015, NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF O F THE ASSESSEE DESPITE SERVICE OF THE NOTICE THROUGH REGI STERED POST. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO NOT FILED THE CONCISE GROUNDS OF APPEAL AS WAS EARLIER DIRECTED. IT, THEREFORE, APPEARS TH AT ASSESSEE IS 2 NO MORE INTERESTED IN PROSECUTING THE APPEAL AND TH E INSTANT APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS LIABLE TO BE DISMIS SED 3. IN OUR ABOVE VIEW, WE GET SUPPORT FROM THE DECI SION OF THE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V. B.N. BHATTACHARGEE AND ANOTHER, REPORTED IN 118 ITR 46L [RELEVANT PAGES 47 7 & 478] WHEREIN THEIR LORDSHIPS HAVE HELD THAT: THE APPEAL DOES NOT MEAN MERELY FILING OF THE APPEAL BUT EFFECTIVELY PURSUING IT. 4. OUR VIEW FURTHER FINDS SUPPORT FROM THE FOLLOWIN G DECISIONS ALSO: I) CIT V. MULTIPLAN INDIA (P) LTD: 38 ITD 320 (DE L) II) ESTATE OF LATE TUKOJIRAO HOLKAR V. CWT: 223 ITR 480(MP) 5. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISIONS [SUPRA], WE DISMISS THE INSTANT APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR NON-PR OSECUTION. 6. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISS ED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 21 ST MAY,2015. SD/- SD/- (T.R.SOOD) (BHAVNESH SAINI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 21 ST MAY,2015. POONAM COPY TO: THE APPELLANT, THE RESPONDENT, THE CIT(A), THE CIT, DR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT CHANDIGARH