G.P. Singh HUF, Ludhiana V. Pr. CIT-2, Ludhiana

ITA 1604/CHANDI/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 121 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4958 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-05-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 09-05-2018
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Appeal Filed On: 27-11-2017
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: GULSHAN RAJ
• Keywords: Reasonable cause
• Section: 263; 63; 2

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.1603/CHD/2017 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2014-15) SH.GURBHEJ SINGH CHAWLA, VS. THE PRINCIPAL CIT-2, 49-A, SARGODHA COLONY, LUDHIANA. LUDHIANA. PAN: AAUPC1272A ITA NO.1604/CHD/2017 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2015-16) SH.G.P. SINGH, HUF VS. THE PRINCIPAL CIT-2, 141-I, SARABHA NAGAR, LUDHIANA. LUDHIANA. PAN: AADHG5075L ITA NO.1605/CHD/2017 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2014-15) S.HARCHARAN SINGH, VS. THE PRINCIPAL CIT-2, PROP. M/S MEENAKASHI LUDHIANA. AUTO INDUSTRIES, STREET NO.3, VISHWKARMA COLONY, LUDHIANA. PAN: AFMPS5525B & ITA NO.1606/CHD/2017 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2014-15) SMT.HARPREET KAUR CHAWLA, VS. THE PRINCIPAL CIT-2, 49-A, PAKHOWAL ROAD LUDHIANA. SARGODHA COLONY, LUDHIANA. PAN: ADRPC8005D (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY : DR.GULSHAN RAJ, CIT DR DATE OF HEARING : 09.05.2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 09.05.2018 ORDER PER BENCH : THIS BUNCH OF FOUR APPEALS HAVE BEEN FILED BY DIFFERENT ASSESSEES AGAINST THE ORDERS PASSED U/S 2 63 OF 2 THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 BY THE PR.CIT, LUDHIANA, A LL DATED 20.9.2017 2. THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEES WERE FIXED FOR HEARING ON 10.4.2018 AND WERE ADJOURNED TO 9.5.2018 AS NONE PUT IN PRESENCE ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, AGAIN ON THE APPOINTED DATE OF HEARING I.E . ON 9.5.2018 NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEES N OR ANY APPLICATION WAS MOVED FOR ADJOURNMENT. THE RECORD SHOWS THAT THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEES WERE SHOWN TO BE DEFECTIVE BY THE REGISTRY WHICH WAS POINTED OUT ON 10.1.2018 BUT TILL DATE, THE ASSESSE ES HAVE NOT MADE ANY ATTEMPT TO CURE THE SAME. IT SEEM S THAT THE ASSESSEES ARE NOT INTERESTED IN PURSUING T HE APPEALS AND THE INSTANT APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESS EES ARE 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 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) 3 5. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISIONS (SUPRA), WE DISMISS THE INSTANT APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEES FOR NON- PROSECUTION. 6. BEFORE PARTING, IT IS APPROPRIATE TO ADD THAT I N THE EVENTUALITY THE ASSESSEES ARE ABLE TO CURE THE DEFECT AND SHOW THAT THERE WAS A REASONABLE CAUSE FOR NON- REPRESENTATION ON THE DATE OF HEARING, IT WOULD BE AT LIBERTY TO PRAY FOR A RECALL OF THIS ORDER BY MAKIN G AN APPROPRIATE PRAYER. SAID ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN TH E OPEN COURT AT THE TIME OF HEARING ITSELF. 7. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE FOUR APPEALS OF THE ASSES SEE ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 9 TH MAY, 2018. SD/- SD/- (DIVA SINGH) (ANNAPURNA GUPTA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED : 23 RD MAY, 2018 *RATI* COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT(A) 4. THE CIT 5. THE DR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH