The Branch Manager, Yamunanagar V. ITO (TDS), Panchkula

ITA 867/CHANDI/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2373 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-04-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 12-03-2014
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 27-08-2013
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: J S NAGAR
• Keywords: Condonation of delay

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.867 /CHD/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10 THE BRANCH MANAGER,, VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER( TDS), ORIENTAL BANK OF COMMERCE, PANCHKULA. GOBINDPURI ROAD, YAMUNANAGAR. PAN: RTKO01038C (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY : SHRI J.S.NAGAR, DR DATE OF HEARING : 12.03.2014 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 (APEALS), KARNAL AGAINST THE PENALTY LEVIED UNDER SECTION 272B OF INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHOR T THE ACT). 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: 1. THAT THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED ITO, TDS, PANCHKU LA IS WRONG, ILLEGAL AND AGAINST THE FACTS OF THE CASE. 2. THAT THE LD.ITO, TDS IS WRONG IN LEVYING PENALTY OF RS.10000/- 272B OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. 4. THE APPELLANT RESERVES A RIGHT TO ADD, AMEND OR ALTER ANY OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. 2 5. THE APPELLANT PRAYS THAT THE APPEAL MAY VERY KIN DLY BE ALLOWED IN TOTAL. 3. DESPITE SERVICE OF NOTICE NONE APPEARED ON BEHAL F OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE EARLIER DATE OF HEARING I.E. 22.10. 2013 AND EVEN ON THE APPOINTED DATE OF HEARING I.E. 12.3.2014. THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT MOVED ANY APPLICATION FOR ADJOURNMENT IN THE CASE. 4. FURTHER ON PERUSAL OF RECORD WE FIND THAT THE AP PEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS TIME BATTED BY 133 DAYS AND DEFECT MEMO WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE IN THIS REGARD. THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILE D TO FILE ANY APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING THE PRESENT APPEAL AFTER A DELAY OF 133 DAYS. IT SEEMS THAT THE ASSES SEE IS NOT INTERESTED IN PURSUING THE APPEAL AND THE INSTANT APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS LIABLE TO BE DISMISSED. 5. 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. 6. 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) 7. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISIONS (SUPRA), WE DISMISS THE 3 INSTANT APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IN LIMNIE FOR NOT BEING FILED IN TIME AND ALSO FOR NON-PROSECUTION. 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