Mr. Ashish Arora, Ludhiana V. DCIT, Ludhiana

ITA 1152/CHANDI/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9723 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 6 month(s) 28 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-07-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 26-07-2016
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 29-12-2014
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MS. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.1152/CHD/2014 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010-11) MR.ASHISH ARORA, VS. THE D.C.I.T., B-2, KITCHLU NAGAR, CIRCLE-III, RISHI NAGAR, LUDHIANA. LUDHIANA. PAN: ADKPA1111B (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY : SHRI SUSHIL KUMAR, CIT DR DATE OF HEARING : 26.07.2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 27.07.2016 O R D E R PER ANNAPURNA GUPTA, A.M . : THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAIN ST THE ORDER OF LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-I, LUDHIANA DATED 19.2.2014 RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11. 2. THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE WAS FIXED FOR HEARING ON 29.7.2015, ON WHICH DATE NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE SAME WAS ADJOURNED TO 2.11.20 15 AND AGAIN TO 29.1.2016, 6.4.2016 AND FINALLY ON 26.7.2016. ON THE APPOINTED DATE OF HEARING I.E. O N 26.7.2016, NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE NOR ANY APPLICATION WAS MOVED FOR ADJOURNMENT. WE FIND THAT 2 EVEN IN FIRST APPEAL BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT (APPEAL S), THE MATTER WAS DECIDED EX-PARTE, ON ACCOUNT OF NON- REPRESENTATION ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE, DESPITE A NUMBER OF OPPORTUNITIES GIVEN. IT SEEMS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED IN PURSUING THE APPEAL AND THE INSTANT A PPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS LIABLE TO BE DISMISSED. 3. IN OUR ABOVE VIEW, WE GET SUPPORT FROM THE DECI SION OF THE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. B.N. BHATT ACHARGEE 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 FOLLOWI NG 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), W E DISMISS THE INSTANT APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE FO R NON- PROSECUTION. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT. SD/- SD/- (BHAVNESH SAINI) (ANNAPURNA GUPTA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED : 27 TH JULY, 2016 *RATI* COPY TO: THE APPELLANT/THE RESPONDENT/THE CIT(A)/THE CIT/THE DR. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH