Sona Agencies Pvt. Ltd., Ludhiana V. ITO, W-5(4), Ludhiana

ITA 64/CHANDI/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 118 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6398 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 11 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 15-01-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 23-01-2018
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Reasonable cause

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH B , CHANDIGARH , !'# $' % & , '( BEFORE: SHRI SANJAY GARG, JM & SMT.ANNAPURNA GUPTA, AM ./ ITA NO.64/CHD/2018 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008-09 SONA AGENCIES PRIVATE LIMITED, INDUSTRIAL AREA-B, LUDHIANA. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 5(4), LUDHIANA. ./PAN NO: AAGCS8081R /APPELLANT /RESPONDENT /ASSESSEE BY : NONE ! / REVENUE BY : SMT.CHANDERKANTA, SR.DR '# $ /DATE OF HEARING : 15.01.2019 %&'(# /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 15.01.2019 ') /ORDER PER ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-2, LUDHIANA (IN SHORT CIT(A) DATED 27.1 1.2017 PASSED U/S 250(6) OF THE INCOME TAX AT, 1961 (HEREI NAFTER REFERRED TO AS ACT). 2. THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE WAS FIXED FOR HEARING FOR TODAY I.E. 15.1.2019 BUT NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. IT WAS NOTED THAT THE NOTICE ISSUED TO TH E ASSESSEE THROUGH SPEED POST, FOR HEARING OF THE APP EAL, WAS RETURNED BACK WITH THE REMARK INSUFFICIENT ADDRESS . ALSO AN EARLIER NOTICE ISSUED DATED 07.08.2018 HAD ALSO RETURNED BACK WITH THE SAME REMARK THOUGH THE ADDRESS IN BO TH THE ITA NO.64/CHD/2018 A.Y.2008-09 2 NOTICES WAS THE SAME AS MENTIONED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE CIT(A)S ORDER AND EVEN IN FORM NO.36 FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE US. EVEN THE HEARING FIXED ON 07.08 .2018 HAD REMAINED UNATTENDED BY THE ASSESSEE. 3. IT SEEMS FROM THE ABOVE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED IN PURSUING THE APPEAL AND THE INSTANT A PPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS LIABLE TO BE DISMISSED. 4. 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. 5. 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) 6. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISIONS (SUPRA), WE DISMISS THE INSTANT APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE FO R NON- PROSECUTION. 7. BEFORE PARTING, IT IS APPROPRIATE TO ADD THAT IN THE EVENTUALITY THE ASSESSEE IS ABLE TO SHOW THAT THERE WAS A REASONABLE CAUSE FOR NON-REPRESENTATION ON THE DATE OF HEARING, IT WOULD BE AT LIBERTY TO PRAY FOR A RECAL L OF THIS ORDER BY MAKING AN APPROPRIATE PRAYER. SAID ORDER W AS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT AT THE TIME OF HEARING ITSELF. ITA NO.64/CHD/2018 A.Y.2008-09 3 8. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 15.01.2019. SD/- SD/- # $' % & (SANJAY GARG) (ANNAPURNA GUPTA) / JUDICIAL MEMBER '( / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER *# /DATED: 15 TH JANUARY, 2019 * ' * &) *+,+ / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT 3. - $ / CIT 4. - $ ( )/ THE CIT(A) 5. +./ 0 , #0 , 123/4 / DR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 6. /35' / GUARD FILE &) $ / BY ORDER, 6 ! / ASSISTANT REGISTRAR