Sh. Dinesh Soin, Ludhiana V. DCIT, Ludhiana

ITA 581/CHANDI/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6769 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 03-10-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: Not Allotted
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 03-04-2017
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH A, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MS. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.581/CHD/2017 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2012-13) SH.DINESH SOIN, VS. THE D.C.I.T., H.NO.31, GARDEN ENCLAVE, CENTRAL CIRCLE-II, SOUTH CITY, LUDHIANA. LUDHIANA. PAN: ADVPS6255P (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY : SMT.ZEENIA HANDA, ADDL. CIT DR DATE OF HEARING :03.10.2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT :03.10.2017 ORDER PER ANNAPURNA GUPTA, A.M. : THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS)-5, LUDHIANA DATED 5.1.2017 RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13. 2. THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE WAS FIXED FOR HEARING ON 29.5.2017 BUT NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESS EE ON THAT DATE AND THE SAME WAS ADJOURNED TO 20.7.2017. FRESH NOTICE OF HEARING FIXING THE APPEAL ON 20.7.2017 WA S SENT TO THE ASSESSEE. ON 20.7.2017 THE BENCH DID NOT FUNCTI ON AND FINALLY THE APPEAL WAS ADJOURNED TO 3.10.2017. HOWE VER, ON THE APPOINTED DATE OF HEARING I.E. ON 3.10.2017, NO NE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE NOR ANY APPLICAT ION WAS MOVED FOR ADJOURNMENT. IT SEEMS THAT THE ASSESS EE 2 IS NOT INTERESTED IN PURSUING THE APPEAL AND THE IN STANT APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS LIABLE TO BE DISMIS SED. 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. WE MAY ADD THAT THE ASSESSEE IS AT LIB ERTY TO PRAY FOR A RECALL OF THE ORDER IN CASE IT IS SERIOU S IN PURSUING THE APPEAL. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT. SD/- SD/- (SANJAY GARG) (ANNAPURNA GUPTA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED : 3 RD OCTOBER, 2017 *RATI* COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT(A) 4. THE CIT 5. THE DR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 3