Shri. Santosh Sahu, Nagpur V. Income Tax Officer Ward 4(4), Nagpur

ITA 169/NAG/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1907 (ITAT-NAGPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 2 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-01-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 02-11-2010
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S R KIRTANE

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NAGPUR E-BENCH, NAGPUR (THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE AT MUMBAI) . . , . / , . . BEFORE SHRI R.K. GUPTA, JUDICIAL MEMBER /AND SHRI RAJENDRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER . / ITA NO.169/NAG/2010 / ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 SHRI SANTOSH SAHU, 248, SMALL FACTORY AREA BHANDARA ROAD, BAGADGANJ, NAGPUR. PAN: AHAPS 4984 J VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 4(4), NAGPUR. ( / APPELLANT ) ( / RESPONDENT ) / APPELLANT BY : NONE ! / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI S.R. KIRTANE ' ! #$% / DATE OF HEARING : 22-01-2013 &' ! #$% / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 22-01-2013 () / O R D E R PER RAJENDRA, AM ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER DT. 14-09-2010 OF THE CIT(A)-II, NAGPUR: THE LEARNED CIT(A) DISMISSED THE APPEAL WITHOUT AP PRECIATION OF FACTS. THE SURRENDERED SALE REPRESENTS THE LOOSE CHITS WHI CH DOES NOT BEAR THE DATE, NATURE OF TRANSACTIONS AND AMOUNT BUT HAS BEEN TREATED AS SALE WHEREAS THE ASSESSEE SURRENDERED THE INCOME TO PURCHASE THE PEACE OF MIN D AND TO AVOID FURTHER LITIGATION. ANY OTHER GROUND AT THE TIME OF HEARING. 2. ASSESSEE WAS INFORMED THAT MATTER WILL BE HEARD ON 22-01-2013. BUT, NO ONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF ASSESSEE, NOR THERE IS ANY A PPLICATION FOR ADJOURNMENT. IN VIEW OF ABOVE, IT APPEARS THAT ASSESSEE IS NOT INTEREST ED IN PROSECUTING THIS APPEAL. HENCE THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS LIABLE TO BE DISMISS ED FOR NON- PROSECUTION. IN THIS REGARD, WE ARE SUPPORTED BY THE DECISION IN THE CAS E OF CIT VS. B.N. BHATTACHARGEE ITA NO.169/NAG/2010 SHRI SANTOSH SAHU 2 AND ANOTHER, REPORTED IN 118 ITR 460 (RELEVANT PAG ES 477 & 478) WHEREIN THEIR LORDSHIPS HAVE HELD THAT: THE APPEAL DOES NOT MEAN MERELY FILING OF THE AP PEAL BUT EFFECTIVELY PURSUING IT. 3. IN THIS REGARD WE ARE ALSO SUPPORTED BY THE DECISIO N IN THE CASE OF CIT VS MULTIPLAN INDIA (P) LTD., 38 ITD 320 (DEL). IT(SS )A NO. 01/MUM/2008 SUNNY SOUNDS P. LTD., 4. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, AND ALSO CONSIDERING THE PROV ISION OF RULE 19 OF THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RULES, 1963, APPEAL OF THE ASSES SEE IS DISMISSED. 5. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED FOR NON- PROSECUTION. AS A RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE STANDS D ISMISSED. * +, - *# / (01 ! ' +23 ! # 45. ORDER PRONOUNCED BY E-BENCH AT MUMBAI ON THIS 22 ND DAY OF JANUARY, 2013 +7' 0,# ' - 789 / 22 $ 2013 ' () &':# ; . SD/- SD/- ( . . / R.K. GUPTA ) ( / RAJENDRA ) (, / JUDICIAL MEMBER % (, / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER +7' MUMBAI, ;( DATE: 22 ND JANUARY, 2013 TNMM COPY TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. THE CONCERNED CIT (A) 4. THE CONCERNED CIT 5. DR, ITAT, NAGPUR 6. GUARD FILE :# # //TRUE COPY// BY ORDER, ASST. REGISTRAR, ITAT