Guru Angad Dev Educational & Welfare Council, Ludhiana V. CIT-I, Ludhiana

ITA 1279/CHANDI/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 134 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5319 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-07-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 26-07-2011
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 11-11-2010
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S K MITTAL
• Section: 80G

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCHES B CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI D.K.SRIVASTAVA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS SUSHMA CHOWLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 1279/CHD/2010 U/S 80G GURU ANGAD DEV EDUCATIONAL & VS. THE CIT-I, WELFARE COUNCIL, LUDHIANA LUDHIANA (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY: SHRI S.K.MITTAL ORDER PER SUSHMA CHOWLA, JM THE APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT-I, LUDHIANA DATED 15/17.9.2010 AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED UNDER S ECTION 80G OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUND OF APPEAL:- THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT-I, LUDHIANA REJECTING THE APPLICATION OF THE APPELLANT FOR EXEMPTION U/S 80G OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, IS CONTRARY TO LAW AND THE FA CTS OF THE CASE. 2. THE NOTICES OF HEARING WERE SENT TO THE ASSESSEE FOR VARIOUS DATES BUT BECAUSE OF THE BENCH NOT FUNCTIONING, THE MATTE R WAS ADJOURNED ON 27.12.2010 AND 31.5.2011. FURTHER, ANOTHER NOTICE OF HEARING WAS ISSUED ON 23.6.2011 FIXING THE DATE OF HEARING ON 26.7.201 1. HOWEVER, ON THE APPOINTED DATE OF HEARING I.E. 26.7.2011 NONE APPEA RED ON BEHALF OF THE 2 ASSESSEE NOR ANY APPLICATION WAS MOVED FOR ADJOURNM ENT. IT SEEMS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED IN PURSUING THE APPE AL 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. BHATTACHARGEE AND ANOTHER, REPORTED IN 118 ITR 461 (RELEVANT PAGES 477 & 478) WHEREIN THEI R 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-PROSECUTION. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 27 TH DAY OF JULY, 2011 SD/- SD/- (D.K.SRIVASTAVA) (SUSHMA CHOWLA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : JULY, 2011 RKK COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. THE DR TRUE COPY BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 3