M/s Goyal Knitwears Pvt. Ltd., Ludhiana V. DCIT, Ludhiana

ITA 215/CHANDI/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 68592 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 9 month(s) 4 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-11-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 20-11-2013
• Assessment Year: 2002-2003
• Appeal Filed On: 22-02-2012
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: AMARVEER SINGH
• Section: 263

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.215/CHD/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2002-03 M/S GOYAL KNITWEARS P.LTD., VS THE DY. COMMISSIONE R OF D-XIX-101/8A, INCOME TAX, SHERPUR CHOWK, CIRCLE-II, G.T.ROAD, LUDHIANA. LUDHIANA. PAN : AACCS3192A (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : NONE DEPARTMENT BY : SHRI AMARVEER SINGH DATE OF HEARING : 20.11.2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 27.11.2013 ORDER PER SUSHMA CHOWLA, JM THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT LUDHIANA AGAINST ORDER UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE ACT DATED 26.12.2011 RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03. 2. THE APPEAL WAS FIXED FOR HEARING ON 23.07.2013, FOR WHICH DATE NOTICE OF HEARING WAS ISSUED BUT, NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE NOR ANY REQUEST FOR ADJOURNMENT WAS RECEIV ED. AFTER THAT ON VARIOUS OCCASIONS, NOTICE OF HEARING WAS ISSUED BUT THERE WAS NO APPEARANCE/REPRESENTATION ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE . ON 20.11.2013 ALSO, NOTICE FOR HEARING WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE BUT NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE NOR ANY REQUEST FOR ADJOU RNMENT WAS RECEIVED. 2 3. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, IT APPEARS THAT THE ASS ESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED IN PROSECUTING THE APPEAL AND THE INSTAN T APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS LIABLE TO BE DISMISSED. 4. IN OUR ABOVE VIEW, WE GET SUPPORT FROM THE DECIS ION OF THE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V. B.N. BHATTACHARGEE AND ANOTHER, REPORTED IN 118 ITR 46L [RELEVANT PAGES 477 & 478] WHEREIN THEIR LORDSHIPS HAVE HELD THAT: THE APPEAL DOES NOT MEAN MERELY FILING OF THE APPE AL BUT EFFECTIVELY PURSUING IT. 5. OUR VIEW FURTHER FINDS SUPPORT FROM THE FOLLOWIN G DECISIONS ALSO: I) CIT V. MULTIPLAN INDIA (P) LTD: 38 ITD 320 (DE L) II) ESTATE OF LATE TUKOJIRAO HOLKAR V. 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 27 TH NOVEMBER,2013. SD/- SD/- ( T.R.SOOD) (SUSHMA CHOWL A) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 27 TH NOVEMBER,2013 POONAM COPY TO: THE APPELLANT / THE RESPONDENT/ THE CIT(A)/ THE CIT /THE DR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT,CHD.