The Budhewal Cooperative Sugar Mills Ltd., Ludhiana V. ACIT, Ludhiana

ITA 904/CHANDI/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9856 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 9 month(s) 12 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-06-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 31-03-2016
• Assessment Year: 1992-1993
• Appeal Filed On: 16-09-2013
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S K MITTALDR

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 904/CHD/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 1992-93 THE BUDHEWAL COOPERATIVE VS THE ACIT, SUGAR MILLS LTD., CIRCLE -III, VPO - BUDHEWAL, LUDHIANA. DISTT. LUDHIANA. PAN: AAAJT0338G (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY : SHRI S.K.MITTAL,DR DATE OF HEARING : 28.06.2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 28.06.2016 O R D E R PER BHAVNESH SAINI,JM THIS APPEAL BY ASSESSEE HAS BEEN DIRECTED AGAINST T HE ORDER OF LD. CIT(APPEALS)-2, LUDHIANA DATED 03.07.2 013 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 1992-93 UNDER SECTION 154/155 OF TH E INCOME TAX ACT. 2. THE RECORD REVEALED THAT EARLIER THE ASSESSEE WA S REPRESENTED BY SHRI TEJ MOHAN SINGH, ADVOCATE AND O N HIS REQUEST, THIS APPEAL WAS ADJOURNED MANY TIMES. SHR I TEJ MOHAN SINGH FORWARDED A REQUEST SEEKING TO WITHDRAW HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY FROM THIS CASE. HIS POWER OF ATT ORNEY IS, THEREFORE, CANCELLED. 2 3. ON THE DATE OF HEARING, NO AUTHORIZED REPRESENTA TIVE OF THE ASSESSEE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. I T, THEREFORE, APPEARS THAT ASSESSEE IS NO MORE INTERESTED IN PROS ECUTING THE APPEAL AND THE INSTANT APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS LIABLE TO BE DISMISSED. 3. IN OUR ABOVE VIEW, WE GET SUPPORT FROM THE DECI SION 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. OUR VIEW FURTHER FINDS SUPPORT FROM THE FOLLOWIN G 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], WE DISMISS THE INSTANT APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR NON-PR OSECUTION. 6. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISS ED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT. SD/- SD/- (SHAMIM YAHYA) (BHA VNESH SAINI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBE R DATED: 28 TH JUNE,2016. POONAM COPY TO: THE APPELLANT, THE RESPONDENT, THE CIT(A), THE CIT, DR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT,CHANDIGARH.