Sh. Vihay Kumar Ghai Prop., Ludhiana V. CIT-I, Ludhiana

ITA 693/CHANDI/2010

• Counselvise Citation: 69321514 RSA 2010
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 7 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-01-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 04-01-2012
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 24-05-2010
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 263

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCH A, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI D.K. SRIVASTAVA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.693 /CHD/2010 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2005-06) SH.VIJAY KUMAR GHAI PROP., VS. THE C.I.T-I., M//S PRINGAL KNITWEARS, AAYAKAR BHAWAN, KARABARA, JALANDHAR BYE PASS, RISHI NAGAR, LUDHIANA. LUDHIANA. PAN: ACZPG7140A (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY : SMT.JYOTI KUMARI,CIT DR DATE OF HEARING : 04.01.2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 12.01.2012 O R D E R PER SUSHMA CHOWLA, J.M. : THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS AGAINST THE ORDER O F THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I, LUDHIANA DATED 30.03. 2010 RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED U/ S 263 OF INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. 2. THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE WAS FIXED FOR HEARING ON 21.6.2010 AND THE SAME WAS ADJOURNED AT THE REQUEST OF THE CO UNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE TO 17.8.2010. THEREAFTER THE APPEAL WAS T IME AND AGAIN ADJOURNED AT THE REQUEST OF THE COUNSEL FOR THE ASS ESSEE I.E. ON 27.10.2010 AND 14.12.2010. THEREAFTER IT WAS FIXED FOR HEARING ON 28.7.2011 AND WAS ADJOURNED TO 13.9.2011, ON WHICH DATE THE BENCH DID NOT FUNCTION. THE APPEAL WAS POSTED FOR HEARIN G ON 29.11.2011. THE APPEAL THEREAFTER WAS ADJOURNED TO 4.1.2012. 3. HOWEVER, NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE APPOINTED DATE OF HEARING I.E. 04.01.2012. IT SEE MS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED IN PURSUING THE APPEAL AND THE IN STANT APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS LIABLE TO BE DISMISSED. 2 4. 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. 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 FOR NON-PROSEC UTION. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 12 TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2012. SD/- SD/- (D.K.SRIVASTAVA) (SUSHMA CHOWLA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED 12 TH JANUARY, 2012 *RATI* COPY TO: THE APPELLANT/THE RESPONDENT/THE CIT(A)/TH E CIT/THE DR. TRUE COPY BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH