Sh. Sukhjeet Singh, Ambala V. ITO, Ambala

ITA 164/CHANDI/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 63994 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-10-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 17-02-2016
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 10-02-2012
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: N K SAINI
• 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 NO.164 /CHD/2012 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-07) SH.SUKHJEET SINGH VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, S/O SH.KARTAR SINGH, WARD 3, VILL.GOLI, TEHSIL BARARA, AMBALA. AMBALA. PAN: AZWPS3453N (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY : SHRI N.K.SAINI, DR DATE OF HEARING : 17.10.2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 30.10.2012 O R D E R PER SUSHMA CHOWLA, J.M. : THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS AGAINST THE ORDER O F THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), PANCHKULA DAT ED 30.11.2011 RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 AGAINST THE ORD ER PASSED U/S 143(3) OF INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT). 2. THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE WAS FIXED FOR HEARING ON 20.3.2012 ON WHICH DATE THE BENCH DID NOT FUNCTION. FRESH NO TICE OF HEARING WAS SENT TO THE ASSESSEE FOR 5.6.2012 AND THE SAME WAS ADJOURNED TO 16.07.2012 AT THE REQUEST OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL FO R THE ASSESSEE. ON 16.7.2012 BENCH DID NOT FUNCTION. AGAIN FRESH N OTICE OF HEARING WAS SENT TO THE ASSESSEE FOR 17.10.2012. ON THE APPOINTED DATE OF HEARING I.E. ON 17.10.2012, NONE APPEARED O N BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE NOR ANY APPLICATION WAS MOVED FOR ADJOURNM ENT. IT SEEMS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED IN PURSUING THE APPEAL AND THE INSTANT APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS LIABLE TO BE DISMIS SED. 2 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 OCTOBER, 2012. SD/- SD/- (T.R.SOOD) (SUSHMA CHOWLA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED 30 TH OCTOBER, 2012 *RATI* COPY TO: THE APPELLANT/THE RESPONDENT/THE CIT(A)/TH E CIT/THE DR. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 3