Bir Parkash Malhotra, Ludhiana V. ACIT Circle II, Ludhiana

ITA 463/CHANDI/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 63869 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 09-08-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 01-08-2012
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 26-04-2012
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MANJIT SINGH
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCH A, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI T.R. SOOD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.463 /CHD/2012 (ASSESSMENT YEAR:2008-09) BIR PARKASH MALHOTRA, VS. THE A.C.I.T., SON & LEGAL HEIR OF CIRCEL II, SH.BALDEV RAJ MALHOTRA. (DECEASED) PAN: ACHPM4535F (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY : SHRI MANJIT SINGH, DR DATE OF HEARING : 01.08.2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 09.08.2012 O R D E R PER SUSHMA CHOWLA, J.M. : THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS AGAINST THE ORDER O F THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS)-I, LUDHIANA DAT ED 21.02.2012 RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 AGAINST THE ORD ER PASSED U/S 143(3) OF INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT). 2. THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE WAS FIXED FOR HEARING ON 4.6.2012 AND THE SAME WAS ADJOURNED TO 7.6.2012 AS NONE PUT IN APPEARANCE ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. AGAIN ON 7.6.2012, NON E APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE HEARING OF THE APPEA L WAS FIXED FOR 1.8.2012 AND FRESH NOTICE OF HEARING WAS ISSUE TO T HE ASSESSEE. ON THE APPOINTED DATE OF HEARING I.E. ON 1.8.2012, NON E APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE NOR ANY APPLICATION WAS MOVE D FOR ADJOURNMENT. IT SEEMS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INT ERESTED IN PURSUING THE APPEAL AND THE INSTANT APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSE SSEE IS LIABLE TO BE DISMISSED. 2 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 9 TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2012. SD/- SD/- (T.R.SOOD) (SUSHMA CHOWLA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED 9 TH AUGUST, 2012 *RATI* COPY TO: THE APPELLANT/THE RESPONDENT/THE CIT(A)/TH E CIT/THE DR. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH