M/s Mohina Properties Pvt. Ltd., Chandigarh V. ITO, Chandigarh

ITA 196/CHANDI/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 60931 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 4 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 06-07-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 02-07-2012
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 16-02-2010
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S K MITTAL

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.196 /CHD/2010 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-07) M/S MOHINA PROPERTIES PVT. LTD., VS. THE INCOME T AX OFFICER, SCO 186-187, SECTOR 17-B, WARD 2(3), CHANDIGARH. CHANDIGARH. PAN: AABCM4309G (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY : SHRI S.K.MITTAL, DR DATE OF HEARING : 02.07.2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 06.07.2012 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, CHANDIGARH DATED 26.10. 2009 RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED U/ S 263) OF INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. 2. THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE WAS FIXED FOR HEARING ON 26.3.2010 AND THE SAME WAS ADJOURNED TO 23.4.2010. ON 23.4. 2010, THE BENCH DID NOT FUNCTION AND THE APPEAL WAS FIXED FOR HEARING ON 15.7.2010. THE APPEAL WAS FURTHER ADJOURNED TO 17 .8.2010 AT THE REQUEST OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. T HEREAFTER THE APPEAL WAS ADJOURNED ON MANY DATES AT THE REQUEST O F LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. FINALLY THE HEARING OF T HE APPEAL WAS FIXED FOR 2.7.2012, FOR WHICH NOTICE WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE. 3. HOWEVER, ON THE APPOINTED DATE OF HEARING I.E. 2.7.2012 NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE NOR ANY APPLICAT ION WAS MOVED FOR ADJOURNMENT. THE NOTICE OF HEARING SENT BY POS T HAS BEEN RETURNED BACK BY THE POSTAL AUTHORITIES AND THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FURNISHED ON 2 RECORD ANY ALTERNATE ADDRESS FOR COMMUNICATION. IT SEEMS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED IN PURSUING THE APPEAL A ND THE INSTANT APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS LIABLE TO BE DISMISSED. TH E APPEAL IS ALSO TIME BARRED BY 46 DAYS. 4. 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. 5. 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) 6. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISIONS (SUPRA), WE DISMISS THE INSTANT APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR NON-PROSEC UTION. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 6 TH DAY OF JULY, 2012. SD/- SD/- (T.R.SOOD) (SUSHMA CHOWLA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED 6 TH JULY, 2012 *RATI* COPY TO: THE APPELLANT/THE RESPONDENT/THE CIT(A)/TH E CIT/THE DR. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 3