Anil Kumar, Ludhiana V. ITO, Ludhiana

ITA 317/CHANDI/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7088 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 5 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-08-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 11-11-2013
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 21-03-2013
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MANJIT SINGH
• Section: 144

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.317 /CHD/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2005-06 ANIL KUMAR, VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, PROP.M/S ANIL TRADING COMPANY, WARD NO.II(1), LAKKAR BAZAR, LUDHIANA. LUDHIANA. PAN: ANJPS6990H (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY : SHRI MANJIT SINGH, DR DATE OF HEARING : 20.08.2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 28.08.2014 O R D E R PER SUSHMA CHOWLA, J.M. : THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS AGAINST THE OR DER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS)-II, LUDHIANA DA TED 11.01.2013 AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 144 OF INCOM E TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT). 2. THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE WAS FIXED FOR HEARING ON 2.7.2013 ON WHICH DATE THE BENCH DID NOT FUNCTION AND THE SA ME WAS ADJOURNED TO 25.9.2013 AND AGAIN THE CASE WAS ADJOU RNED TO 11.11.2013 AT THE REQUEST OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL FO R THE ASSESSEE. ON 11.11.2013 AND 28.1.2014 THE BENCH DID NOT FUNC TION AND THE SAME WAS ADJOURNED TO 20.8.2014. ON THE APPOINTED DATE OF HEARING I.E. ON 20.8.2014, NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE A SSESSEE NOR ANY 2 APPLICATION WAS MOVED FOR ADJOURNMENT. IT SEEMS TH AT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED IN PURSUING THE APPEAL AND THE INSTA NT APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS LIABLE TO BE DISMISSED. 3. 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. 4. 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) 5. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISIONS (SUPRA), WE DISMISS THE INSTANT APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR NON-PROSEC UTION. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 28 TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2014. SD/- SD/- (T.R.SOOD) (SUSHMA CHOWLA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 28 TH AUGUST, 2014 *RATI* COPY TO: THE APPELLANT/THE RESPONDENT/THE CIT(A)/TH E CIT/THE DR. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 3