Sh. Sudhir Kumar Sharma, Ludhiana V. ITO, Ludhiana

ITA 768/CHANDI/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8996 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 4 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 15-11-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: Not Allotted
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 10-06-2016
• 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 GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NOS. 768 & 769/CHD/2016 A.YS: 2006-07 & 2009-10 SHRI SUDHIR KUMAR SHARMA, VS THE ITO, 70, NEW LAJPAT NAGAR, WARD VI(3), LUDHIANA. LUDHIANA. PAN: ADBPS0503N & ITA NOS. 770 & 771/CHD/2016 A.YS: 2006-07 & 2009-10 SHRI SUDHIR KUMAR SHARMA,HUF VS THE ITO, 70, NEW LAJPAT NAGAR, WARD VI(3), LUDHIANA. LUDHIANA. PAN: AAKHS0128R (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY : SHRI MANJIT SINGH, CIT-DR DATE OF HEARING : 15.11.2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 15.11.2016 O R D E R PER BHAVNESH SAINI,JM ALL THE APPEALS BY THE ABOVE TWO ASSESSEES ARE DIRE CTED AGAINST DIFFERENT ORDERS OF LD. CIT(APPEALS)-3, LUD HIANA DATED 31.03.2016 FOR THE ABOVE ASSESSMENT YEARS. 2 2. NONE PRESENT FOR THE ASSESSEES. THE ASSESSEES HA VE BEEN NOTIFIED THE DATE OF HEARING THROUGH REGISTERED POS T. IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEE SHRI SUDHIR KUMAR SHARMA, THE POST AL AUTHORITIES RETURNED THE ENVELOP CONTAINING THE NOT ICE BY MAKING ENDORSEMENT NO SUCH PERSON ON THIS ADDRESS . NO OTHER ADDRESS HAS BEEN GIVEN FOR THE PURPOSE OF SER VICE. IN THE CASE OF SHRI SUDHIR KUMAR SHARMA, HUF, THE NOTI CES SENT THROUGH REGISTERED POST HAVE NOT RETURNED BACK. IT IS, THEREFORE, CLEAR THAT DESPITE NOTIFYING THE DATE OF HEARING THROUGH REGISTERED POST, NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. IT SEEMS THAT THE ASSESSEES ARE NO MORE INTERESTED IN PROSECUTING THEIR APPEALS. THEREFORE, APPEALS O F THE ASSESSEES ARE LIABLE TO BE DISMISSED. 3. IN OUR ABOVE VIEW, WE GET SUPPORT FROM THE DECI SION OF THE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V. B.N. BHATTACHA RGEE 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) 3 5. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISIONS [SUPRA], WE DISMISS THE APPEALS FILED BY ASSESSEES FOR NON-PROSECUTION. 6. IN THE RESULT, APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEES ARE DISM ISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT. SD/- SD/- (ANNAPURNA GUPTA) (BHAVNESH SAINI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 15 TH NOVEMBER,2016. POONAM COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT(A) 4. THE CIT,DR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT CHANDIGARH