M/s Munshi Ram Walaiti Ram, Chandigarh V. DCIT, Chandigarh

ITA 809/CHANDI/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 117 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8181 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 9 month(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 15-04-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: Not Allotted
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 20-06-2016
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: HEEMANT GUPTA
• Keywords: Reasonable cause

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH B , CHANDIGARH , ! ' , $ % & ' ( , ' BEFORE: SMT.DIVA SINGH, JM & SMT.ANNAPURNA GUPTA, A M ./ ITA NO.555/CHD/2016 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006-07 ./ ITA NO.809/CHD/2016 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10 M/S MUNSHI RAM WALAITI RAM, SCO: 854, NAC, MANIMAJRA. THE D. C.I.T., CENTRAL CIRCLE-II, CHANDIGARH. ./PAN NO: AAFFM7631J /ASSESSEE BY : NONE / REVENUE BY : SHRI HEEMANT GUPTA, SR DR ! /DATE OF HEARING : 15.04.2019 '#$% ! /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 15.04.2019 /ORDER PER BENCH : THE PRESENT APPEALS HAVE BEEN FILED BY THE SAME ASSESSEE AGAINST THE SEPARATE ORDERS OF THE COMMISS IONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-3, GURGAON (IN SHORT CIT(A) DATED 22.2.3016 AND 29.4.2016 PASSED U/S 250(6) OF THE IN COME TAX AT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS ACT), RE LATING TO ASSESSMENT YEARS 2006-07 AND 2009-10 RESPECTIVELY. 2. THE ABOVE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE WERE INITIALLY FIXED FOR HEARING ON 5.12.2016 & 21.11.2016 RESPECTIVELY AND ITA NOS.555 & 809/CHD/2016 A.YS.20 06-07 & 2009-10 2 THE SAME WERE ADJOURNED TO SEVERAL DATES THEREAF TER EITHER ON THE REQUEST OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR ASSESS EE OR ON THE REQUEST OF LD. DR. HOWEVER, ON THE APPOINTED DA TE OF HEARING I.E. 15.4.2019 NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF T HE ASSESSEE NOR ANY APPLICATION WAS MOVED FOR ADJOURNMENT. IT SEEMS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTE RESTED IN PURSUING THE APPEAL AND THE INSTANT APPEALS FILE D BY THE ASSESSEE ARE LIABLE TO BE DISMISSED. 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 APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE F OR NON- PROSECUTION. 6. BEFORE PARTING, IT IS APPROPRIATE TO ADD THAT IN THE EVENTUALITY THE ASSESSEE IS ABLE TO SHOW THAT THERE WAS A REASONABLE CAUSE FOR NON-REPRESENTATION ON THE DATE OF HEARING, IT WOULD BE AT LIBERTY TO PRAY FOR A RECAL L OF THIS ORDER BY MAKING AN APPROPRIATE PRAYER. SAID ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT AT THE TIME OF HEARING ITSELF. ITA NOS.555 & 809/CHD/2016 A.YS.20 06-07 & 2009-10 3 7. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT. SD/- SD/- $ % & ' ( (DIVA SINGH) (ANNAPURNA GUPTA) , ' / JUDICIAL MEMBER * ' / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER $ /DATED: 15 TH APRIL, 2019 * * #& ' () *) / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. + / THE APPELLANT 2. ',+ / THE RESPONDENT 3. - / CIT 4. - ( )/ THE CIT(A) 5. )./ ' 0 , ! 0 , 123/4 / DR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 6. /3 5 / GUARD FILE #& / BY ORDER, / ASSISTANT REGISTRAR