Sh. Rohit Verma, Ludhiana V. DCIT, Ludhiana

ITA 134/CHANDI/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 60957 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 24 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-07-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 25-07-2012
• Assessment Year: 2003-2004
• Appeal Filed On: 03-02-2012
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCH B, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI T.R.SOOD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NOS.134 & 135 /CHD/2012 (ASSESSMENT YEARS:2003-04 & 2005-06) SH.ROHIT VERMA, VS. THE D.C.I.T., PROP.M/S GULAB HOSIERY, CIRCLE VI, 861, INDUSTRIAL AREA A, LUDHIANA. LUDHIANA. PAN: AAMPV6548C (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY : SHRI AKHILESH GUPTA, DR DATE OF HEARING : 25.07.2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 27.07.2012 O R D E R PER SUSHMA CHOWLA, J.M. : THESE TWO APPEALS BY THE ASSESSEE ARE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-II, LUDHIANA D ATED 14.11.2011 RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEARS 2003-04 AND 2005-06 AG AINST THE ORDER PASSED U/S 143(3) OF INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT). 2. THESE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE WERE FIXED FOR HEA RING ON 14.3.2012 AND THE SAME WERE ADJOURNED TO 15.5.2012 AT THE REQUEST OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. ON 15.5.2 012 THE BENCH DID NOT FUNCTION AND THE APPEALS WERE ADJOURNED FOR 25.7.2012 AND NOTICE OF HEARING WAS SENT TO THE ASSESSEE. ON THE APPOINTED DATE OF HEARING I.E. ON 25.7.2012, NONE APPEARED ON BEHA LF OF THE ASSESSEE NOR ANY APPLICATION WAS MOVED FOR ADJOURNM ENT. IT SEEMS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED IN PURSUING THE APPEALS AND THE INSTANT APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE LIABLE TO BE DISM ISSED. 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 2 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 APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR NON-PROSE CUTION. 6. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASS ESSEE ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 27 TH DAY OF JULY, 2012. SD/- SD/- (T.R.SOOD) (SUSHMA CHOWLA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED 27 TH JULY, 2012 *RATI* COPY TO: THE APPELLANT/THE RESPONDENT/THE CIT(A)/TH E CIT/THE DR. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH