Suhail Goyal, Chandigarh V. DCIT, Chandigarh

ITA 357/CHANDI/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9725 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 16 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-07-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: Not Allotted
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 11-04-2016
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MS. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.357/CHD/2016 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2011-12) SUHAIL GOYAL, VS. THE D.C.I.T., H.NO.64, SECTOR-9, CENTRAL CIRCLE-I, CHANDIGARH. CHANDIGARH. PAN: ANDPG6446Q (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY : SHRI MANOJ MISHRA, CIT DR DATE OF HEARING : 27.07.2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 27.07.2016 O R D E R PER ANNAPURNA GUPTA, A.M . : THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAIN ST THE ORDER OF LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-3, GURGAON DATED 25.1.2016 RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12. 2. THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE WAS FIXED FOR HEARING ON 27.7.2016, FOR WHICH DATE NOTICE OF HEARING WAS SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, ON THE APPOINTED DATE OF HEARING I.E. ON 27.7.2016, NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE NOR ANY APPLICATION WAS MOVED FOR ADJOURNM ENT. WE FIND THAT EVEN IN FIRST APPEAL BEFORE THE LEARNE D CIT (APPEALS), THE MATTER WAS DECIDED EX-PARTE, ON ACCO UNT OF 2 NON-REPRESENTATION ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE, DESPI TE A NUMBER OF OPPORTUNITIES GIVEN. IT SEEMS THAT THE A SSESSEE 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 DECI SION OF THE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. B.N. BHATT ACHARGEE AND ANOTHER, REPORTED IN 118 ITR 461 (RELEVANT PAGE S 477 & 478) WHEREIN THEIR 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 FOLLOWI NG 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), W E DISMISS THE INSTANT APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE FO R NON- PROSECUTION. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT. SD/- SD/- (BHAVNESH SAINI) (ANNAPURNA GUPTA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED : 27 TH JULY, 2016 *RATI* COPY TO: THE APPELLANT/THE RESPONDENT/THE CIT(A)/THE CIT/THE DR. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH