Sh. Anil Bansal, Panchkula V. ACIT, Chandigarh

ITA 231/CHANDI/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6179 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 4 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 11-07-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 10-07-2014
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 01-03-2013
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCH A CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI T.R.SOOD ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.231/CHD/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10 SHRI ANIL BANSAL, VS THE ACIT, HOUSE NO. 304-E-4, CENTRAL CIRCLE II, AWHO, CHANDIGARH. SECTOR 20, PANCHKULA. PAN : ABGPB9697 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : NONE DEPARTMENT BY : SHRI AKHILESH GUPTA DATE OF HEARING : 10.07.2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 11.07.2014 ORDER PER SUSHMA CHOWLA, JM THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINS T THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) GURGAON DATED 14.12.2012 RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 AGAINST THE ORD ER PASSED UNDER SECTION 153B(1)(B) R.W.S. 143(3) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 ( 'THE ACT' FOR SHORT). 2. THE CASE WAS FIXED FOR HEARING ON 17.06.2013 ON WHICH DATE THE BENCH DID NOT FUNCTION AND CASE WAS ADJOURNED TO 30 .09.2013. ON 30.09.2013 LD. AR FOR THE ASSESSEE SENT AN APPLICAT ION FOR ADJOURNMENT AND IT WAS ADJOURNED TO 28.11.2013. ON 28.11.2013, AT THE REQUEST OF THE LD. AR FOR THE ASSESSEE, THE CASE WAS ADJOURNED TO 08.01.2014. THE BENCH DID NOT FUNCTION ON 08.01.2014 AND THE CASE W AS ADJOURNED TO 2 10.07.2014 FOR WHICH DATE NOTICE OF HEARING WAS ALS O ISSUED. BUT ON 10.07.2014, NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE NOR ANY REQUEST FOR ADJOURNMENT WAS RECEIVED. 3. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, IT APPEARS THAT THE ASS ESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED IN PROSECUTING THE APPEAL AND THE INSTANT APPEAL FI LED 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 THEI R 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-PROSECUTION. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 11 TH JULY,2014. SD/- SD/- ( T.R.SOOD) (SUSHMA CHOWLA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDIC IAL MEMBER DATED: 11 TH JULY,2014 POONAM COPY TO: THE APPELLANT, THE RESPONDENT, THE CIT(A), THE CIT, DR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT,CHD.