Sh. Sarabjit Singh, Bathinda V. The Commissioner of Income-tax, Bathinda

ITA 669/ASR/2014

• Counselvise Citation: 66920914 RSA 2014
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 17-11-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 05-11-2014
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: GHANSHAM SHARMA

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AMRITSAR BENCH; AMRITSAR (SMC) BEFORE SH. A.D. JAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.669(ASR)/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2005-06 PAN: CCFBS9999K SH. SARABJIT SINGH VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, ST. NO.,13/9, 602, GURU GOBIND WARD 1(1), SINGH NAGAR, BATHINDA. BATHINDA (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY:NONE RESPONDENT BY: SH. GHANSHAM SHARMA, DR DATE OF HEARING: 17/11/2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 17/11/2015 ORDER THIS IS THE ASSESSEES APPEAL FOR THE ASSESSMENT Y EAR 2005-06, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 27.08.2014 PASSED BY THE LD . CIT(A), BATHINDA. 2. NOTICE OF HEARING FOR TODAY, I.E., 17.11.2015 WA S ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE BY RPAD ON 09.11.2015. AS PER RECORD, THE SAME HAS NOT RETURNED UNSERVED. HOWEVER, AT THE TIME OF HEARING, NEITHER THE ASSESSEE, NOR ITS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE APPEARED, NOR ANY APPLICATION FOR ADJOURNMENT WAS FILED. BESIDES, THE REGISTRY HAS POINTED OUT THE FOLLOWING DEFECT IN THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSE E, WHICH HAS ALSO NOT BEEN RECTIFIED TILL NOW: I) NAME OF THE RESPONDENT ON THE CAUSE TITLE OF MEM ORANDUM OF APPEAL AS WELL AS COL. NO.11 ARE WRONGLY FILED I N. 3. IN VIEW THE AFORESAID FACTS, I AM OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED IN PROSECUTION OF THE PRESENT APPEAL AND THE SAME IS LIABLE TO BE DISMISSED ON THIS GROUND ITSELF. THEREFORE, CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND KEEPING IN MIND THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 19(2) OF THE INCOME-TAX (APPELLATE TRIBUNAL) RULES, 1963, AS WERE CONSIDERE D IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. MULTIPLAN INDIA LTD. REPORTED IN 38 ITD 320(DEL .), I TREAT THIS APPEAL AS UN-ADMITTED. ACCORDINGLY, THE APPEAL IS DISMISSE D FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION. THE ASSESSEE, IF SO ADVISED, SHALL BE FREE TO MOVE THIS TRIBUNAL PRAYING FOR RECALLING OF THIS ORDER AND EX PLAINING THE REASONS FOR NON-COMPLIANCE, ETC. AND IF THE BENCH IS SO SATISFI ED ABOUT THE REASONS, ETC., THIS ORDER SHALL BE RECALLED. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DIS MISSED FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 17TH NOVEMBER, 2015. SD/- (A.D. JAIN) JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 17/11/2015 /SKR/ COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. THE ASSESSEE:SH. SARABJIT SINGH, BATHINDA. 2. THE ITO, WARD 1(!), BATHINDA. 3. THE CIT(A), BATHINDA. 4. THE CIT, BATHINDA.S 5. THE SR. DR, ITAT, ASR. TRUE COPY BY ORDER (ASSISTANT REGISTRAR) INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AMRITSAR BENCH: AMRITSAR.