Ram Kumar, Nalagarh V. ITO, Baddi

ITA 118/CHANDI/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 73450 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-01-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 29-01-2014
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 29-01-2010
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: J S NAGAR
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCH A, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI T.R.SOOD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.118/CHD/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006-07 RAM KUMAR, VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, VILL. HARIPUR SANDHOLI, BADDI. BADDI, NALAGARH. PAN: AAYPK3559L (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY : SHRI J.S.NAGAR, DR DATE OF HEARING : 29.01.2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 30.01.2014 O R D E R PER SUSHMA CHOWLA, J.M. : THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS AGAINST THE ORD ER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), SHIMLA DATED 24.11.2009 AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT). 2. THE APPEAL WAS FIXED FOR HEARING ON VARIOUS DATE S I.E. FROM 18.3.2010 AND THE SAID CASE WAS ADJOURNED AT THE RE QUEST OF THE LEARNED A.R. FOR THE ASSESSEE OR THE LEARNED D.R. F OR THE REVENUE FROM DATE TO DATE AND ON SOME DATES THE BENCH DID N OT FUNCTION. ON THE LAST DATE OF HEARING I.E. 29.1.2014, NOTICE OF HEARING WAS SENT TO THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, NONE APPEARED ON BE HALF OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE DATE OF HEARING I.E. 29.1.2014, NOR ANY APPLICATION WAS MOVED FOR ADJOURNMENT. IT SEEMS THAT THE ASSES SEE IS NOT 2 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 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 : 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. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 30 TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2014. SD/- SD/- (T.R.SOOD) (SUSHMA CHOWLA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 30 TH JANUARY, 2014 *RATI* COPY TO: THE APPELLANT/THE RESPONDENT/THE CIT(A)/TH E CIT/THE DR. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 3