Sh. Satish Soin, Ludhiana V. Pr. CIT (Central), Ludhiana

ITA 739/CHANDI/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6889 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 10 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 07-09-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: Not Allotted
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 27-04-2017
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAVI SARANGALCIT

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MS. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.739/CHD/2017 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2012-13) SH.SATISH SOIN, VS. THE PR.CIT., H.NO.31, GARDEN ENCLAVE, LUDHIANA. SOUTH CITY, LUDHIANA. PAN: ADVPS6254N ITA NOS.744 & 745/CHD/2017 (ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2010-11 & 2012-13) SMT.RITU SOIN, VS. THE PR.CIT., H.NO.31, GARDEN ENCLAVE, LUDHIANA. SOUTH CITY, LUDHIANA. PAN: AJIPS8572L (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY : SHRI RAVI SARANGAL,CIT DR DATE OF HEARING : 07.09.2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 07.09.2017 O R D E R PER BENCH : THESE THREE APPEALS HAVE BEEN FILED BY DIFFERENT ASSESSEES AGAINST THE SEPARATE ORDERS OF LD. COMMIS SIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), LUDHIANA, ALL DATED 22.2.2 017, RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEARS 2012-13, 2010-11 AND 2 012-13 RESPECTIVELY. 2. THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEES WERE FIXED FOR HEARING ON 28.6.2017 AND ADJOURNED TO 6.9.2017. ON 6.9.2017 NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE AN D THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEES FINALLY ADJOURNED TO 7.9.2 017. HOWEVER, ON THE APPOINTED DATE OF HEARING I.E. ON 7 .9.2017, 2 NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE NOR ANY APP LICATION WAS MOVED FOR ADJOURNMENT. IT SEEMS THAT THE ASSESS ES ARE NOT INTERESTED IN PURSUING THE APPEALS AND THE INST ANT APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE LIABLE TO BE DISM ISSED. 3. IN OUR ABOVE VIEW, WE GET SUPPORT FROM THE DECISION 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 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 FOLLOWI NG 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), W E DISMISS THE INSTANT APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEES FOR NON- PROSECUTION. 6. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE THREE APPEALS OF THE ASS ESSEE ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT. SD/- SD/- (SANJAY GARG) (ANNAPURNA GUPTA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED : 7 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 3