Shri Sunil Gupta, Mandi V. ITO, Sunder Nagar

ITA 575/CHANDI/2012

• Counselvise Citation: 57521514 RSA 2012
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 3 month(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-08-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 19-08-2015
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 17-05-2012
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MANJIT SINGH

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH,CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MS.ANNAPURNA MEHROTRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 575/CHD/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 SHRI SUNIL GUPTA, VS THE ITO, PROP. SUN STEEL FAB., SUNDER NAGAR. VPO GUTKAR, MANDI. PAN: ABXPG0839R (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY : SHRI MANJIT SINGH DATE OF HEARING : 19.08.2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 19.08.2015 O R D E R PER BHAVNESH SAINI,JM THIS APPEAL BY ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORD ER OF LD. CIT(APPEALS) SHIMLA DATED 28.02.2012 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08. 2. THIS APPEAL WAS ADJOURNED MANY TIMES ON THE REQU EST OF COUNSEL FOR ASSESSEE. ULTIMATELY, THE COUNSEL F OR ASSESSEE WITHDREW HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY AFTER SEEKI NG MANY ADJOURNMENTS. THEREFORE, NOTICE WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE TWICE THROUGH REGISTERED POST. THE NOTICE IS SERVED UPON ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, ASSESSEE DID NOT PU T IN APPEARANCE TO ARGUE THE APPEAL. FURTHER, THE APPEA L OF THE ASSESSEE IS TIME BARRED BY TWO DAYS AND DESPITE SPECIFIC DIRECTIONS GIVEN ON 09.10.2014 TO FILE APP LICATION 2 FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY, NO STEPS HAVE BEEN TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE IN THIS REGARD. IT, THEREFORE, APPEARS AS SESSEE IS NO MORE INTERESTED IN PROSECUTING THE APPEAL. THERE FORE, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS LIABLE TO BE DISMISSE D. 3. IN OUR ABOVE VIEW, WE GET SUPPORT FROM THE DECI SION OF THE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V. B.N. BHATTACHA RGEE AND ANOTHER, REPORTED IN 118 ITR 46L [RELEVANT PAGES 47 7 & 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 V. MULTIPLAN INDIA (P) LTD: 38 ITD 320 (DE L) II) ESTATE OF LATE TUKOJIRAO HOLKAR V. CWT: 223 ITR 480(MP) 5. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISIONS [SUPRA], WE DISMISS THE INSTANT APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR NON-PR OSECUTION. 6. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISS ED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 19 TH AUGUST,2015. SD/- SD/- (ANNAPURNA MEHROTRA) (BHAVNESH SAINI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 19 TH AUGUST,2015. POONAM COPY TO: THE APPELLANT, THE RESPONDENT, THE CIT(A), THE CIT, DR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT CHANDIGARH