Sh. Jasjit Singh, Sirhind V. ITO, Ward, Sirhind HQ, Mandi Gobindgarh

ITA 457/CHANDI/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 119 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2387 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 01-11-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 01-11-2018
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 12-04-2018
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Reasonable cause

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH B , CHANDIGARH , !' , # $ % & ' , ()' BEFORE: SMT.DIVA SINGH, JM & SMT.ANNAPURNA GUPTA, A M ./ ITA NO.457/CHD/2018 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2012-13 SH.JASJIT SINGH PROP. M/S BHATTI TRADERS & C/O PATIALA BUS SERVICE (P) LTD., SIRHIND. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-SIRHIND, H.Q. MANDI GOBINDGARH. ./PAN NO: AVJPS4301A /ASSESSEE BY : NONE / REVENUE BY : SMT.CHANDERKANTA, SR.DR ! /DATE OF HEARING : 01.11.2018 '#$% /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 01.11.2018 (* /ORDER PER ANNAPURNA, AM : THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), PATIALA (IN SHORT CIT(A) DATED 29.3.2017 PASSED U/S 250 (6) OF THE INCOME TAX AT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS ACT). 2. THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE WAS FIXED FOR HEARING TODAY I.E. ON 28.8.2018 AND THE SAME WAS ADJOURNED TO 25. 9.2018 AND AGAIN TO 1.11.2018 AT THE REQUEST OF THE PROXY COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, SHRI TEJ MOHAN, ADVOCATE. HOWEVE R, ON THE APPOINTED DATE OF HEARING I.E. 1.11.2018 NONE ITA NO.1020/CHD/2017 A.Y.2013-14 2 APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE NOR ANY APPLICAT ION WAS MOVED FOR ADJOURNMENT. ALSO IT IS NOTED THAT TH E APPEAL IS TIME BARRED BY 314 DAYS. IT SEEMS THAT TH E ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED IN PURSUING THE APPEAL A ND THE INSTANT APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS LIABLE TO B E 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. BHATTACH ARGEE 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 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 FO R NON- PROSECUTION. 6. BEFORE PARTING, IT IS APPROPRIATE TO ADD THAT IN THE EVENTUALITY THE ASSESSEE IS ABLE TO SHOW THAT THERE WAS A REASONABLE CAUSE FOR NON-REPRESENTATION ON THE DATE OF HEARING, IT WOULD BE AT LIBERTY TO PRAY FOR A RECAL L OF THIS ORDER BY MAKING AN APPROPRIATE PRAYER. SAID ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT AT THE TIME OF HEARING ITSELF. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ITA NO.1020/CHD/2017 A.Y.2013-14 3 ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 01.11.2018. SD/- SD/- # $& % ' (DIVA SINGH) (ANNAPURNA GUPTA) +' / JUDICIAL MEMBER ()' / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER # /DATED: 1 ST NOVEMBER, 2018 * * #&' ()*) / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. + / THE APPELLANT 2. ',+ / THE RESPONDENT 3. - ! / CIT 4. - ! ( )/ THE CIT(A) 5. )./' 0 , 0 , 123/4 / DR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 6. /35 / GUARD FILE #& ! / BY ORDER, 6 / ASSISTANT REGISTRAR