Bibi Jagir Kaur, Mohali V. ITO, Mohali

ITA 685/CHANDI/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 121 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1612 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-11-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: Not Allotted
• Next Hearing Date: 15-02-2017
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 15-07-2015
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MANJIT SINGH

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MS. ANNAPURNA MEHROTRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 685/CHD/2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 BIBI JAGIR KAUR, VS THE ITO, 673, PHASE-VI, WARD 6(2), MOHALI. MOHALI. PAN: ACWPK1229P (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY : SHRI MANJIT SINGH DATE OF HEARING : 30.11.2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 30.11.2015 O R D E R PER BHAVNESH SAINI,JM THIS APPEAL BY ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORD ER OF LD. CIT(APPEALS)-II, CHANDIGARH DATED 20.03.2015 FOR AS SESSMENT YEAR 2007-08, CHALLENGING THE LEVY OF PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. 2. THE APPEAL WAS FIXED FOR HEARING ON 01.10.2015, HOWEVER, NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE DESPITE SER VICE OF THE NOTICE. THEREFORE, FRESH NOTICE WAS ISSUED FOR 30. 11.2015. AFTER ADJOURNMENT OF THE CASE, SHRI MUKHTIAR SINGH, PA TO THE ASSESSEE APPEARED AND NOTED THE DATE OF HEARING FOR 30.11.2015. HOWEVER, ON 30.11.2015, NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF THE APPEA L. NO MATERIAL IS PRODUCED IN SUPPORT OF THE APPEAL. IT, THEREFORE, 2 APPEARS THAT ASSESSEE IS NO MORE INTERESTED IN PROS ECUTING THE APPEAL AND THE INSTANT APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS LIABLE TO BE DISMISSED UNADMITTED. 3. IN OUR ABOVE VIEW, WE GET SUPPORT FROM THE DECI SION OF THE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V. B.N. BHATTACHARGEE AND ANOTHER, REPORTED IN 118 ITR 46L [RELEVANT PAGES 47 7 & 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 V. MULTIPLAN INDIA (P) LTD: 38 ITD 320 (DE L) II) ESTATE OF LATE TUKOJIRAO HOLKAR V. CWT: 223 ITR 480(MP) 5. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISIONS [SUPRA], WE DISMISS THE INSTANT APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR NON-PR OSECUTION. 6. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISS ED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT. SD/- SD/- (ANNAPURNA MEHROTRA) (BHAVNESH SAINI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBE R DATED: 30 TH NOVEMBER,2015. POONAM COPY TO: THE APPELLANT, THE RESPONDENT, THE CIT(A), THE CIT, DR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT CHANDIGARH