Mrs. Manjit Kaur Bajwa, Chandigarh V. ITO, Chandigarh

ITA 676/CHANDI/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2317 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 10 month(s) 6 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 16-04-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 07-11-2012
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 10-06-2011
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: N K SAINI

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCH A, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI T.R.SOOD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.676 /CHD/2011 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-07) MRS.MANJIT KAUR BAJWA, VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICE R, HOUSE NO.103, SECTOR 28-A, WARD 4(2), CHANDIGARH. CHANDIGARH. PAN: ADSPB6312K AND ITA NO.677 /CHD/2011 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-07) MR.DEEPINDER SINGH BAJWA, VS. THE INCOME TAX OFF ICER, HOUSE NO.103, SECTOR 28-A, WARD 4(2), CHANDIGARH. CHANDIGARH. PAN: ADSPB6311L (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY : SHRI N.K.SAINI, DR DATE OF HEARING : 11.04.2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 16.04.2013 O R D E R PER SUSHMA CHOWLA, J.M. : THESE TWO APPEALS BY THE DIFFERENT ASSESSEES ARE A GAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A), CHANDIGARH B OTH DATED 21.03.2011 RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07, AGA INST THE PENALTY LEVIED U/S 271(1)(C) OF INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SH ORT THE ACT). 2. THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEES WERE FIXED FOR HEAR ING ON 26.9.2012 AND THE SAME WERE ADJOURNED TO 7.11.2012 AND THEN TO 17.12.2012 AT THE REQUEST OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL FO R THE ASSESSEES. ON 17.12.2012 THE BENCH DID NOT FUNCTION. FRESH NO TICE OF HEARING WAS SENT TO THE ASSESSEES FOR 11.4.2013. ON THE AP POINTED DATE OF HEARING I.E. ON 11.4.2013, NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEES 2 NOR ANY APPLICATION WAS MOVED FOR ADJOURNMENT. IT SEEMS THAT THE ASSESSEES ARE NOT INTERESTED IN PURSUING THE APPEAL S AND THE INSTANT APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEES ARE LIABLE TO BE DIS MISSED. 3. IN OUR ABOVE VIEW, WE GET SUPPORT FROM THE DECIS ION OF THE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. B.N. BHATTACHARGEE AND ANOTHER, REPORTED IN 118 ITR 461 (RELEVANT PAGES 477 & 478) WHEREIN T HEIR 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 APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEES FOR NON-PROS ECUTION. 6. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASS ESSEES ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 16 TH DAY OF APRIL, 2013. SD/- SD/- (T.R.SOOD) (SUSHMA CHOWLA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED 16 TH APRIL, 2013 *RATI* COPY TO: THE APPELLANT/THE RESPONDENT/THE CIT(A)/TH E CIT/THE DR. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 3