Sh. Ashwani Kumar, Ludhiana V. ITO, Ludhiana

ITA 822/CHANDI/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 73566 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-03-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 06-03-2014
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 05-08-2013
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCH B, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI T.R.SOOD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.989 /CHD/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010-11 SH.ASHWANI KUMAR, VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, C/O M/S A.K.KNITWEARS, RANGE III(2), WAIT GANJ, LUDHIANA. LUDHIANA. PAN: ABVPK9616L (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY : SHRI AKHILESH GUPTA, DR DATE OF HEARING : 10.03.2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 20.03.2014 O R D E R PER SUSHMA CHOWLA, J.M. : THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS AGAINST THE ORD ER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-II, LUDHIANA D ATED 28.05.2013 AGAINST THE PENALTY LEVIED UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT). 2. THE REGISTRY HAD POINTED OUT THE DEFECT IN THE M EMO OF APPEAL THAT COL NOS.2,4,6, TO 8 IN THE MEMO OF THE APPEAL NOT CORRECTLY FILLED IN . THE ASSESSEE HAD FAILED TO CORRECT THE SAID DEFE CT TILL DATE. 3. THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE WAS FIXED FOR HEARING ON 6.3.2014 AND THE SAME WAS ADJOURNED TO 10.3.2014 AT THE REQU EST OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE AND AS SUGGESTED B Y THE ASSISTANT 2 OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, MS.VEENA. ON THE APPOINTED DATE OF HEARING I.E. ON 10.3.2014, NONE A PPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE NOR ANY APPLICATION WAS MOVE D FOR ADJOURNMENT. IT SEEMS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INT ERESTED IN PURSUING THE APPEAL AND THE INSTANT APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSE SSEE IS LIABLE TO BE DISMISSED. 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 20 TH DAY OF MARCH, 2014. SD/- SD/- (T.R.SOOD) (SUSHMA CHOWLA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 20 TH MARCH, 2014 *RATI* COPY TO: THE APPELLANT/THE RESPONDENT/THE CIT(A)/TH E CIT/THE DR. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 3