Sunny Aggarwal, Ludhiana V. Addl. CIT, Ludhiana

ITA 445/CHANDI/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 63962 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 8 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-09-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 27-09-2012
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 19-04-2012
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: AKHILESH GUPTA

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCHES A CHANDIGARH BEFORE MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MEHAR SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 445/CHD/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 SHRI SUNNY AGGARWAL, VS THE ADDL. CIT, LUDHIANA RANGE-VI, LUDHIANA PAN NO. AEUPA0513Q (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY : SHRI AKHILESH GUPTA DATE OF HEARING : 27.09.2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 28.09.2012 ORDER PER SUSHMA CHOWLA, JM THE APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS AGAINST THE ORDER OF ACIT, RANGE VI, LUDHIANA DATED 23.3.2012 RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEA R 2007-08 AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 271D OF THE I.T. ACT, 19 61. 2. THE PRESENT APPEAL WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE REGISTRY HAD ISSUED A DEFECT NOTICE TO THE ASSESSEE POINTING OUT THE FOLLOWING DEFECTS:- 5. COL. NOS. 3 & 8 IN THE MEMO OF APPEAL NOT CORRE CTLY FILED IN. 7. FORM #35 / GROUNDS OF APPEAL / STATEMENT OF THE FACTS BEFORE THE CIT(A) / DY. CIT NOT FILED IN DUPLICATE. 8. ONE CERTIFICATE COPY AND ONE ORDINARY COPY OF CIT(A) / DY CITS NOT FILED IN DUPLICATE. 9. COPY OF ASSTT. ORDER NOT FILLED IN DUPLICATE U. /S 143(B) 12. VERIFICATION IS INCOMPLETE. 2 3. THE HEARING OF THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE WAS FI XED ON 30.5.2012. THE BENCH DID NOT FUNCTION ON THE SAID DATE AND THE APP EAL WAS THEREAFTER FIXED ON 27.9.2012 FOR WHICH THE NOTICE OF HEARING WAS ISSUE D TO THE ASSESSEE. ON THE APPOINTED DATE OF HEARING, NONE WAS PRESENT ON BEHA LF OF THE ASSESSEE NOR ANY APPLICATION FOR ADJOURNMENT WAS MOVED BY THE ASSESS EE. FURTHER, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT REMOVED THE DEFECTS POINTED OUT BY THE REGI STRY IN THE MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL FILED. IT SEEMS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED IN PROSECUTING THE APPEAL. THEREFORE, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF MULTIPLAN (INDIA) LTD. (38 ITD 320) AND MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT IN LATE TUKOJIRAO HOLKAR (223 ITR 480), WE DISMISS THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION AND NON REMOVAL OF DEFECTS BY THE ASSESSEE. IN THIS CONNECTION, THE ASSESSEE IS AT LIBERTY TO PROSECUTE THE CASE IF IT DESIRES TO DO SO IN FUTURE, AS PER THE S TIPULATED LAW. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 28 TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2012. SD/- SD/- (MEHAR SINGH) (SUSHMA CHOWLA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 28 TH SEPTEMBER, 2012 RKK COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. THE DR TRUE COPY BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR