M/s Quarkcity India Private Limited, Mohali V. DCIT, Mohali

ITA 256/CHANDI/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 121 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1582 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 5 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 07-09-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 07-09-2015
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 11-03-2014
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MANJIT SINGH

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MS. RANO JAIN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NOS. 256 & 257/CHD/2014 A.Y: 2007-08 & 2008-09 M/S QUARK CITY INDIA P.LTD., V THE DCIT, A-45, INDUSTRIAL AREA, CIRCLE 6(1), PHASE VIII-B, MOHALI. MOHALI. PAN: AAACQ1134G & ITA NO. 275/CHD/2013 A.Y: 2009-10 M/S QUARK CITY INDIA P.LTD., V THE ADDL.CIT, A-45, INDUSTRIAL AREA, RANGE VI, PHASE VIII-B, MOHALI. MOHALI. PAN: AAACQ1134G (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY : SHRI MANJIT SINGH DATE OF HEARING : 07.09.2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 07.09.2015 O R D E R PER BHAVNESH SAINI,JM THIS ORDER SHALL DISPOSE OF ALL THE APPEALS FILED B Y THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE DIFFERENT ORDERS OF LD. CIT(AP PEALS), CHANDIGARH DATED 01.01.2014 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 200 7-08, DATED 06.01.2014 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 AND DA TED 07.12.2012 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 . 2 2. THE RECORD REVEALED THAT ON EARLIER OCCASIONS, T HE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE WERE ADJOURNED ON THE REQUEST OF CO UNSEL FOR ASSESSEE IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09. THE ASSESSEE DID NOT APPEAR BEFORE LD. CIT(APPEALS) AND APPEAL WAS DECID ED EX-PARTE. IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 SIMILARLY, LD. CIT(APPEA LS) DECIDED APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE EX-PARTE BECAUSE NOBODY APPE ARED BEFORE HIM ON THE DATE OF HEARING. EVEN THE APPEAL IN ASS ESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 WAS DISMISSED IN DEFAULT BECAUSE THE ASSESS EE DID NOT APPEAR ON THE DATE OF HEARING. HOWEVER, THIS ORDER WAS RECALLED BY ALLOWING MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION OF THE ASSESS EE. 3. THE HISTORY OF THE ASSESSEE SHOWS THAT ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED IN PROSECUTING THE APPEALS. ON THE DATE OF HEARING, NOBODY APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE DESPITE S ERVICE OF THE NOTICE. THEREFORE, ALL THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE LIABLE TO BE DISMISSED IN-LIMINE. 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 47 7 & 478] WHEREIN THEIR 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 V. MULTIPLAN INDIA (P) LTD: 38 ITD 320 (DE L) II) ESTATE OF LATE TUKOJIRAO HOLKAR V. CWT: 223 ITR 480(MP) 3 6. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISIONS [SUPRA], WE DISMISS THE INSTANT APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR NON-P ROSECUTION. 7. IN THE RESULT, APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMI SSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT. SD/- SD/- (RANO JAIN) (BHAVNESH SA INI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 7 TH SEPTEMBER,2015. POONAM COPY TO: THE APPELLANT, THE RESPONDENT, THE CIT(A), THE CIT, DR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT CHANDIGARH