M/s Defence Estate Officer, Chandigarh V. JCIT (TDS), Chandigarh

ITA 43/CHANDI/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0090 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 3 month(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-04-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 29-03-2016
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 08-01-2015
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MANJIT SINGH

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCHES, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MS. RANO JAIN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NOS. 43 TO 45/CHD/2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-11 TO 2012-13 THE DEFENCE ESTATE OFFICER, VS THE JCIT (TDS) , KENDRIYA SADAN, CHANDIGARH. 5 TH FLOOR, SECTOR 9, CHANDIGARH. PAN: PTLD10773A (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY : SHRI MANJIT SINGH DATE OF HEARING : 18.04.2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 18.04.2016 O R D E R PER BHAVNESH SAINI, JM ALL THE APPEALS BY ASSESSEE ARE DIRECTED AGAINST TH E ORDER OF LD. CIT(APPEALS), CHANDIGARH DATED 29.10.2014 FO R ASSESSMENT YEARS 2010-11 TO 2012-13. 2. THE RECORD REVEALED THAT EARLIER THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE WERE DISMISSED FOR DEFAULT VIDE ORDER DATE D 07.04.2015. THE EX-PARTE ORDER WAS, HOWEVER, RECAL LED WHILE ALLOWING MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATIONS OF THE ASSESSEE VIDE ORDER DATED 18.09.2015 AND APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE WERE F IXED FOR HEARING ON MERITS. ON 29.03.2016, THE APPEALS WERE ADJOURNED ON THE REQUEST OF LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE FOR 18.04.2016 BECAUSE ASSESSEE WANTED TO FILE REVISED GROUNDS OF APPEAL. ON 18.04.2016 NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF ASSESSEE. IT, THEREFORE, 2 APPEARS THAT ASSESSEE IS NO MORE INTERESTED IN PROS ECUTING THE APPEALS. THEREFORE, APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE LI ABLE TO BE DISMISSED 3. IN OUR ABOVE VIEW, WE GET SUPPORT FROM THE DECI SION 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. 4. 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) 5. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISIONS [SUPRA], WE DISMISS THE INSTANT APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR NON- PROSECUTION. 6. IN THE RESULT, APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMI SSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT. SD/- SD/- (RANO JAIN) (BHAVNESH SAINI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMB ER DATED: 18 TH APRIL,2016. POONAM COPY TO: THE APPELLANT, THE RESPONDENT, THE CIT(A), THE CIT, DR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT CHANDIGARH 3