Gurpreet Singh, Ludhiana V. Income Tax Officer W 6(1), Ludhiana

ITA 867/CHANDI/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9144 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 8 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-08-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 22-07-2016
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S K MITTALDR

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC BENCH, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 867/CHD/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-11 SHRI GURPREET SINGH, VS THE ITO, 319, MODEL TOWN, WARD 6(1), LUDHIANA. LUDHIANA. PAN: ARSPS7363K (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY : SHRI S.K.MITTAL,DR DATE OF HEARING : 30.08.2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 30.08.2016 O R D E R THIS APPEAL BY ASSESSEE HAS BEEN DIRECTED AGAINST T HE ORDER OF LD. CIT(APPEALS)-3, LUDHIANA DATED 15.03.2 016 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 CHALLENGING THE LEVY OF PEN ALTY UNDER SECTION 271A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. 2. ON THE LAST DATE OF HEARING, NONE APPEARED DESPI TE SERVICE UPON ASSESSEE. LAST OPPORTUNITY WAS GRANTE D TO ARGUE THE APPEAL ON 30.08.2016 AND INTIMATION WAS S ENT TO THE ASSESSEE THROUGH REGISTERED POST. HOWEVER, NON E APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE AT THE TIME OF H EARING OF THE APPEAL. IT, THEREFORE, APPEARS THAT ASSESSEE I S NO MORE INTERESTED IN PROSECUTING THE APPEAL AND THE APPEAL FILED BY 2 THE ASSESSEE IS LIABLE TO BE DISMISSED. IT MAY ALS O BE NOTED HERE THAT ASSESSEE ALSO DID NOT APPEAR BEFORE LD. C IT(APPEALS) TO ARGUE THE APPEAL ON MERITS. 3. IN MY ABOVE VIEW, I GET SUPPORT FROM THE DECISI ON OF THE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V. B.N. BHATTACHARGEE 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. MY VIEW FURTHER FINDS SUPPORT FROM THE FOLLOWING 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) 5. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISIONS [SUPRA], I DISMISS THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR NON-PROSECUTIO N. 6. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISS ED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT. SD/- (BHAVNESH SAINI) JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 30 TH AUGUST,2016. POONAM COPY TO: THE APPELLANT, THE RESPONDENT, THE CIT(A), THE CIT, DR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT CHANDIGARH