M/s Futuristic Garments Private Limited, Chandigarh V. DCIT, Chandigarh

ITA 724/CHANDI/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6802 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 1 month(s) 20 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-09-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: Not Allotted
• Next Hearing Date: 14-02-2017
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 07-08-2015
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: G K DHALL

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH A, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MS. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.724/CHD/2015 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007-08) FUTURISTIC GARMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED, VS. THE D.C.I.T., SCO 141-143, SECTOR 43B, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CHANDIGARH. CHANDIGARH. PAN: ASWPS3865R (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY : SHRI G.K. DHALL, CIT DR DATE OF HEARING : 28.09.2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 28.09.2017 ORDER PER ANNAPURNA GUPTA, A..M. : THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD), GURGAON DATED 18..2.2015 RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08. 2. THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE WAS FIXED FOR HEARING ON 20.10.2015 AND THE SAME WAS ADJOURNED TO ABUNDANT D ATES EITHER ON THE REQUEST OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR ASSESS EE OR FOR OTHER REASONS. FINALLY, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE WAS ADJOURNED TO 28.9.2017. HOWEVER, ON THE APPOINTED DATE OF HEARING I.E. ON 28.9.2017, NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE NOR ANY APPLICATION WAS MOVED FOR ADJOURNMENT. IT SEEMS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTE RESTED IN PURSUING THE APPEAL AND THE INSTANT APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS LIABLE TO BE DISMISSED. 2 3. IN OUR ABOVE VIEW, WE GET SUPPORT FROM THE DECIS ION OF THE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. B.N. BHATTACH ARGEE AND ANOTHER, REPORTED IN 118 ITR 461 (RELEVANT PAGE S 477 & 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 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 APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE FO R NON- PROSECUTION. WE MAY ADD THAT THE ASSESSEE IS AT LIB ERTY TO PRAY FOR A RECALL OF THE ORDER IN CASE IT IS SERIOU S IN PURSUING THE APPEAL. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT. SD/- SD/- (SANJAY GARG) (ANNAPURNA GUPTA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED : 28 TH SEPTEMBER, 2017 *RATI* COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT(A) 4. THE CIT 5. THE DR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH