Sh. Sukhwinder Singh, Ludhiana V. CIT I, Ludhiana

ITA 546/CHANDI/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 73528 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 9 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-02-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 20-02-2014
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 14-05-2013
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: JYOTI KUMARI
• 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.546 /CHD/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008-09 SH.SUKHWINDER SINGH, VS. THE C.I.T.-I, PROP.M/S AHMEDGARH LUDHIANA. TANKER TRANSPORT, ST.NO.4, OPP.SPEEDWAYS TYRES, HIRA NAGAR, AMBALA ROAD, LUDHIANA. PAN: ANZPS8434Q (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY : SMT.JYOTI KUMARI, DR DATE OF HEARING : 20.02.2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 25.02.2014 O R D E R PER SUSHMA CHOWLA, J.M. : THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS AGAINST THE ORD ER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I, LUDHIANA DATED 15.03. 2013 AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF INCOME TAX ACT , 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT). 2. THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE WAS FIXED FOR HEARING ON 7.8.2013 AND THE SAME WAS ADJOURNED TO 21.10.2013 AT THE RE QUEST OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. ON 21.10.2013 T HE BENCH DID NOT FUNCTION AND THE SAME WAS ADJOURNED TO 20.2.2014. ON THE APPOINTED DATE OF HEARING I.E. ON 20.2.2014, NONE A PPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE NOR ANY APPLICATION WAS MOVE D FOR ADJOURNMENT. IT SEEMS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INT ERESTED IN PURSUING 2 THE APPEAL AND THE INSTANT APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSE SSEE IS LIABLE TO BE 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. 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 IN LIMINE FOR BEING DELAYED BY 864 DAYS AND ALSO NON-APPEARANCE BY THE ASSESSEE. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 25 TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2014. SD/- SD/- (T.R.SOOD) (SUSHMA CHOWLA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 25 TH FEBRUARY, 2013 *RATI* COPY TO: THE APPELLANT/THE RESPONDENT/THE CIT(A)/TH E CIT/THE DR. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 3