Sh. Tarlochan Singh Minhas, Jalandhar V. The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Jalandhar

ITA 668/ASR/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 125 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1121 (ITAT-AMRITSAR)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 8 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-09-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 28-12-2015
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 144

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR. BEFORE SH. SANJAY ARORA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. N. K. CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER I. T. A. NO. 668/(ASR)/2015 ASSES SMENT YEAR: 2008-09 TARLOCHAN SINGH MINHAS CIRCLE H. NO. 36-L, BLOCK-A, MODEL HOUSE, JALANDHAR [PAN: AFHPM 9838G] VS. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE 1, JALANDHAR (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY: SH. CHARAN DASS (D.R.) DATE OF HEARING: 11.09.2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 13.09.2018 ORDER PER SANJAY ARORA, AM: THIS IS AN APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-1, JALANDHAR ( CIT(A) FOR SHORT) DATED 21.10.2015, DISMISSING THE ASSESSEES APPEAL CONTES TING HIS ASSESSMENT U/S. 144 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 ('THE ACT' HEREINAFTER) DA TED 31.12.2010 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR (AY) 2008-09. 2. THE APPEAL, SUBSEQUENT TO ITS FILING ON 28.12.2 015, HAS COME UP FOR HEARING SEVERAL TIMES, WITH AN ADJOURNMENT BEING SOUGHT FOR AND ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE EACH TIME. THE COUNSEL, SH. PRAVEEN JAIN, ADVOCATE, HAS SINCE WITHDRAWN HIS POWER VIDE LETTER DATED 31.01.2018. SUBSEQUENT THER ETO, THERE HAS BEEN NO REPRESENTATION FOR AND ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE, N OR ANY ADJOURNMENT MOTION ITA NO. 668/ASR/2015 (AY 2008-09) TARL OCHAN SINGH MINHAS V. DY. CIT 2 MADE, EVEN AS THE NOTICE OF HEARING SENT AT THE ASS ESSEES REGISTERED ADDRESS THROUGH REGISTERED POST HAS NOT COME BACK UNSERVED. A PERUSAL OF THE RECORD SHOWS THAT THERE HAS BEEN NO REPRESENTATION BEFORE THE AS SESSING AS WELL AS THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY. UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, IT IS ONLY CONSIDERED FIT AND PROPER THAT THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IS DISMISSED IN LIMINE FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION; IT BEING TRITE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS TO PROSECUTE ITS APPEA L, TAKING POSITIVE STEPS TOWARD THE SAME, WHICH ONLY WOULD QUALIFY IT TO BE A PREFERENC E OF AN APPEAL. AS CLARIFIED BY THE HONBLE APEX COURT IN CIT V. B.N. BHATTARCHARYA [1979] 118 ITR 461 (SC), PREFERRING AN APPEAL DOES NOT MEAN MERE FILING THE APPEAL MEMO, BUT EFFECTIVELY PURSUING IT. WE, THEREFORE, FOLLOWING THE DECISIONS BY THE HONBLE COURTS, AS IN ESTATE OF LATE TUKOJIRAO HOLKAR VS. CWT [1997] 223 ITR 480 (MP) AND CHEMIPOL VS. UNION OF INDIA (IN CENTRAL EXCISE APPEAL NO. 62 OF 2009, DATED 17 /9/2010), AS WELL AS BY THE TRIBUNAL IN CIT VS. MULTIPLAN INDIA (P.) LTD . [1991] 38 ITD 320 (DEL), DISMISS THE INSTANT APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE A S UN-ADMITTED FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION. IN DOING SO, WE ARE CONSCIOUS THAT THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES HAVE ALSO BEEN, FOR WANT OF REPRESENTATION AND PROSECUTION OF HIS CASE BEFORE THEM, CONSTRAINED TO PASS EX PARTE ORDERS, SO THAT AN ORDER ON MERITS IS EVEN OTHERWI SE NOT FEASIBLE AT THIS STAGE. THE ASSESSEE THOUGH, WE MAY CLARIFY, IS AT LIBERTY TO MOVE THE TRIBUNAL U/S. 24 OF THE INCOME-TAX (APPELLATE TRIBU NAL) RULES, 1963 FOR RESTORING HIS APPEAL. WE DECIDE ACCORDINGLY. 3. IN THE RESULT, THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IS DISMISSE D IN LIMINE AS UNADMITTED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON SEPTEMBER 13, 2018 SD/- SD/- (N. K. CHOUDHRY) (SANJAY ARORA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATE: 13.09.2018 /GP/SR. PS. COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: ITA NO. 668/ASR/2015 (AY 2008-09) TARL OCHAN SINGH MINHAS V. DY. CIT 3 (1) THE APPELLANT: TARLOCHAN SINGH MINHAS CIRCL E H. NO. 36-L, BLOCK-A, MODEL HOUSE, JALANDHAR (2) THE RESPONDENT: DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE 1, JALANDHAR (3) THE CIT(APPEALS)-1, JALANDHAR (4) THE CIT CONCERNED (5) THE SR. DR, I.T.A.T TRUE COPY BY ORDER