M/s Chief Administrator Haryana Rural Development Authority, Chandigarh V. CIT, Panchkula

ITA 1080/CHANDI/2011

• Counselvise Citation: 108021514 RSA 2011
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 08-06-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 08-11-2011
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: JAI SHREE SHARMA
• Section: 12AA

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCH B, CHANDIGARH BEFORE MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MEHAR SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.1080 /CHD/2011 (U/S 12AA) CHIEF ADMINISTRATOR HARYANA VS. THE C.I.T., RURAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, PANCHKULA. PLOT NO.3, SECTOR 28-A, CHANDIGARH. PAN: AAALC0475D (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY : SMT.JAISHREE SHARMA, DR DATE OF HEARING : 06.06.2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 08.06.2012 O R D E R PER SUSHMA CHOWLA, J.M. : THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS AGAINST THE ORDER O F THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PANCHKULA DATED 02.09.2 011 AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED U/S 12AA OF INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. 2. THE APPEAL WAS FIXED FOR HEARING ON 9.1.2012 AND IT WAS ADJOURNED TO 23.2.2012 AT THE REQUEST OF THE ASSESS EE. THEREAFTER APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE WAS FIXED FOR HEARING ON 25. 4.2012 AND THE SAME WAS ADJOURNED TO 6.6.2012 AT THE REQUEST OF TH E LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, NONE APPEARED O N BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE APPOINTED DATE OF HEARING I.E. 6.6. 2012, NOR ANY APPLICATION WAS MOVED FOR ADJOURNMENT. IT SEEMS TH AT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED IN PURSUING THE APPEAL AND THE INSTA NT APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS LIABLE TO BE DISMISSED. 3. IN OUR ABOVE VIEW, WE GET SUPPORT FROM THE DECIS ION OF THE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. B.N. BHATTACHARGEE AND ANOTHER, REPORTED IN 118 ITR 461 (RELEVANT PAGES 477 & 478) WHEREIN T HEIR LORDSHIPS HAVE HELD THAT : 2 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 VS. MULTIPLAN INDIA (P) LTD., 38 ITD 320 (DEL) II) ESTATE OF LATE TUKOJIRAO HOLKAR VS.CWT, 223 ITR 480 (MP) 5. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISIONS (SUPRA), WE DISMISS THE INSTANT APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR NON-PROSEC UTION. 6. THE ASSESSEE SHALL, HOWEVER, BE AT LIBERTY TO RE QUEST FOR RECALLING OF THE ORDER IF PREVENTED BY SUFFICIENT CAUSE FOR N ON-APPEARANCE ON THE DATE OF HEARING. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 8 TH DAY OF JUNE, 2012. SD/- SD/- (MEHAR SINGH) (SUSHMA CHOWLA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED 8 TH JUNE, 2012 *RATI* COPY TO: THE APPELLANT/THE RESPONDENT/THE CIT(A)/TH E CIT/THE DR. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH