Sh. Anwar UL Haq Haffiz, Chandigarh V. ITO, Chandigarh

ITA 1140/CHANDI/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6835 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 10 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-09-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: Not Allotted
• Next Hearing Date: 15-02-2017
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 04-11-2016
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: CHANDER KANTADR

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH A, CHANDIGARH BEFORE MS. DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MS. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.1140/CHD/2016 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10) SH.ANWAR UL HAQ HAFFIZ, VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, # 2141, SECTOR-35C, WARD-4(4), CHANDIGARH. CHANDIGARH. PAN: ASWPS3865R (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY : SMT.CHANDER KANTA,DR DATE OF HEARING : 20.09.2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 20.09.2017 ORDER PER ANNAPURNA GUPTA, A..M. : THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-2, CHANDIGARH DATED 8.8.2016 RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10. 2. THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE WAS FIXED FOR HEARING ON 4.1.2017 AND THE SAME WAS ADJOURNED TO VARIOUS DATE S EITHER ON THE REQUEST OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR ASSESS EE OR FOR OTHER REASONS. FINALLY, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE WAS ADJOURNED TO 20.9.2017. HOWEVER, ON THE APPOINTED DATE OF HEARING I.E. ON 20.9.2017, NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE BUT AN APPLICATION WAS MOVED FOR ADJOURNME NT MERELY STATING THAT THE COUNSEL REPRESENTING THE AS SESSEE MS.MINKY MITTAL WAS UNWELL AND NOT IN A POSITION TO ARGUE THE CASE. NO DOCUMENT TO SUBSTANTIATE THE FACT WAS PLACED BEFORE US. IT SEEMS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERE STED IN 2 PURSUING THE APPEAL AND THE INSTANT 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. BHATTACH ARGEE AND ANOTHER, REPORTED IN 118 ITR 461 (RELEVANT PAGE S 477 & 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 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 FO R NON- PROSECUTION. WE MAY ADD THAT THE ASSESSEE IS AT LIB ERTY TO PRAY FOR A RECALL OF THE ORDER IN CASE IT IS SERIOU S IN PURSUING THE APPEAL. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT. SD/- SD/- (DIVA SINGH) (ANNAPURNA GUPTA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED : 20 TH SEPTEMBER, 2017 *RATI* COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT(A) 4. THE CIT 5. THE DR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH