Pragatipuram Sanskritik Avam Jankalyan Samiti, Rishikesh V. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Lucknow

ITA 538/LKW/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 119 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1148 (ITAT-LUCKNOW)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 3 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-11-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 24-08-2017
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: A K BAR

Judgement Text

I.T.A. NO.538/LKW/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR:N.A. 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH B, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI A. D. JAIN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI T. S. KAPOOR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.538/LKW/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR:N.A. PRAGATIPURAM SANSKRITIK AVAM JANALYAN SAMITI, 11/87, THDC COLONY, PRAGATIPURAM BYE PASS ROAD, RISHIKESH, UTTARAKHAND. PAN:AACTP 5624 K VS. CIT (EXEMPTIONS), LUCKNOW. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) O R D E R PER T. S. KAPOOR, A.M. THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST TH E ORDER OF LEARNED CIT (EXEMPTIONS), LUCKNOW DATED 23/06/2017 PASSED U NDER SECTION 80G(5)(VI) OF THE I.T. ACT. 2. AT THE THRESHOLD WE NOTED THAT WHEN THIS APPEAL WAS CALLED FOR HEARING, NEITHER ANYBODY APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE NOR ADJOURNMENT APPLICATION WAS FILED. WE FIND THAT PR OPER NOTICE OF HEARING HAS ALREADY BEEN SENT TO THE ASSESSEE. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, IT APPEARS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED IN PROSECUTING THE APPEAL. AS SUCH WE HOLD THAT THIS APPEAL IS LIABLE TO BE APPELLANT BY NONE RESPONDENT BY SHRI A. K. BAR, CIT (D.R.) DATE OF HEARING 26 / 11 /201 8 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 30 / 11 /201 8 I.T.A. NO.538/LKW/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR:N.A. 2 DISMISSED FOR NON PROSECUTION. IN THIS REGARD WE P LACE RELIANCE UPON THE FOLLOWING CASE LAWS: 1. CIT VS. MULTIPLAN INDIA LTD. 38 ITD 320 (DEL) 2. ESTATE OF LATE TUKOJIRAO HOLKAR VS. CWT 223 ITR 480 (M.P.) 3. NEW DIWAN OIL MILLS VS. CIT (2008) 296 ITR 495 ( P& H) 4. CIT VS. B. N. BHATTACHARGEE AND ANOTHER 118 ITR 461(SC). 3. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE VIEW TAKEN IN THE CAS ES CITED (SUPRA), WE DISMISS THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR NON P ROSECUTION. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE IS AT LIBERTY TO MOVE APPLICATION U/S 254 OF THE ACT IN CASE THE ASSESSEE SO DESIRES. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. (ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 30/11/2018) SD/. SD/. ( A. D. JAIN ) ( T. S. KAPOOR ) VICE PRESIDENT ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED:30/11/2018 *SINGH COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. CONCERNED CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. D.R., I.T.A.T., LUCKNOW ASSISTANT REGISTRAR