IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCH A, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI T.R.SOOD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NOS.850 TO 854 /CHD/2013 ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2005-06 TO 2009-10 THE SUB REGISTRAR, VS. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (C IB), SIRSA. CHANDIGARH. PAN: AEMPP4963M (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY : SHRI AKHILESH GUPTA, DR DATE OF HEARING : 13.05.2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 29.05.2014 O R D E R PER SUSHMA CHOWLA, J.M. : THIS BUNCH OF FIVE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS AGAINST THE CONSOLIDATED ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TA X (APPEALS), ROHTAK DATED 16.11.2012 AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED UN DER SECTION 271FA OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT). 2 . THE REGISTRY HAD POINTED OUT A DEFECT IN THE PRESE NT APPEALS THAT THE APPEALS WERE TIME BARRED BY 205 DAYS AND THE AS SESSEE WAS REQUIRED TO FILE EXPLANATION OR MOVE AN APPLICATION FOR COND ONATION OF DELAY IN THIS REGARD. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO FURNI SH ANY APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. THE APPE ALS WERE FIXED FOR HEARING ON 25.11.2013, ON WHICH DATE SHRI D.K.GOYAL WHO HAD EARLIER FILED A PAPER BOOK AND ALSO WRITTEN PLEADINGS REQUE STED FOR WITHDRAWAL OF POWER OF ATTORNEY IN THE SAID CASES. THE SAID REQUEST OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE WAS ALLOWED AND THE CASES WERE ADJOURNED TO 2 8.1.2013 FOR WHICH FRESH NOTICE WAS ISSUED TO THE A SSESSEE THROUGH REGISTERED POST. HOWEVER, THE BENCH DID NOT FUNCTI ON ON 8.1.2014 AND THE APPEALS WERE FINALLY FIXED FOR HEARING ON 15.5. 2014. NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE APPOINTED DATE OF HEARING, NOR ANY APPLICATION WAS MOVED FOR ADJOURNMENT. 3. THE ONLY ISSUE RAISED IN THE PRESENT BUNCH APPEA LS WAS AGAINST LEVY OF PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271FA OF THE ACT AND IT WA S POINTED OUT BY THE LEARNED D.R. FOR THE REVENUE THAT THE SAID ISSUE IS COVERED BY THE EARLIER ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF SUB REGISTRAR, BASSI PATHANA VS. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (CIB) & OTHERS IN ITA NOS.67 4 & 675/CHD/2012 RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEARS 2006-07 AND 2009-10, O RDER DATED 30.10.2013. HOWEVER, ON PERUSAL OF RECORD WE FIND THAT THE PRESENT APPEALS ARE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AFTER DELAY OF 20 5 DAYS AND THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT MOVED ANY APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DE LAY. IN VIEW THEREOF, THE PRESENT APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE NOT MAINTAINABLE BEING TIME BARRED BY 205 DAYS AND ARE DISMISSED IN LIMINE. FURTHER IT SEEMS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED IN PURSUI NG THE APPEALS AND THE INSTANT APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE 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) 3 6. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISIONS (SUPRA), WE DISMISS THE INSTANT APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IN LIMINE FOR NOT BEING FILED IN TIME AND ALSO FOR NON-PROSECUTION. 7. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE FIVE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 29 TH DAY OF MAY, 2014. SD/- SD/- (T.R.SOOD) (SUSHMA CHOWLA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 29 TH MAY, 2014 *RATI* COPY TO: THE APPELLANT/THE RESPONDENT/THE CIT(A)/TH E CIT/THE DR. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH