Mrs Sangeeta Jha, Chandigarh V. Dy. Director of Income Tax, Chandigarh

ITA 911/CHANDI/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9148 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 22 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 09-08-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: Not Allotted
• Next Hearing Date: 27-05-2016
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 18-12-2015
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MANJIT SINGH

Judgement Text

1 | P A G E INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCH, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI SANJAY GARG , JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.911 /CHD/20 15 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009 - 10 MRS. SANGEETA JHA, 638, SECTOR - 36 - B, CHANDIGARH, PAN:ACTPJ0554F VS. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (INTL. TAXATION, AAYAKAR BHAWAN, PLOT NO. 17, HIMALAYA MARG, SECTOR - 17E, CHANDIGARH (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ITA NO.912 /CHD/2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009 - 10 SH. S. K. JHA, 638, SECTOR - 36 - B, CHANDIGARH, PAN:ACTPJ0554F VS. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (INTL. TAXATION, AAYAKAR BHAWAN, PLOT NO. 17, HIMALAYA MARG, SECTOR - 17E, CHANDIGARH (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SH. ATUL GOYAL, CA REVENUE BY: SH. MANJIT SINGH, DR DATE OF HEARING 02 /0 8 /2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 0 9 /0 8 /2016 O R D E R PER PRASHANT MAHARISHI , A . M . 1 . TH ESE ARE APPEAL S FILED BY THE A SSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD CIT(A) - 43, NEW DELHI DATED 16.05.2015 AND SIMILARLY IN ITA NO . 912/CHD/2015 AND SIMILARLY AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 16.10.2015 OF LD CIT(A) - 43, NEW DELHI FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009 - 10 IN CASE OF ABOVE TWO ASSESSEES . 2 . DU RING THE COURSE OF HEARING THE A SSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT VIDE ORDER DATED 02.05.2016 PASSED BY THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER GIVING APPEAL EFFE CT PURSUANT TO RELIEF ALLOWED BY THE LD CIT ( A), THERE REMAINS NEGLIGIBLE AMOUNT OF TAX AND AS THE A SSESSEE HAS ALREADY GOT RELIEF BY THE ORDER OF THE LD CIT ( A), THE LD AR OF THE A SSESSEES STATED THAT THE APPELLANTS DOES NOT WANT TO PURSUE THESE APPEAL S. SUCH WRITTEN APPLICATION WAS ALSO SUBMITTED. 3 . THE LD DR HAS ALSO DID NOT EXPRESS ANY RESERVATION ON THE REQUEST OF THE LD AR TO WITHDRAW THE ABOVE APPEALS. 2 | P A G E 4 . IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACTS AND APPLICATION OF THE LD AR DATED 02.08.2016 ENCLOSING THE ORDER OF THE AO GIVING APPEAL EFFECT TO THE ORDER OF LD CIT(A) WE ALLOW THE A SSESSEE TO WITHDRAW THESE APPEALS AND HENCE THE ABOVE TWO APPEALS ARE DISMISSED. 5 . IN THE RESULT THE APPEALS FILED BY THE A SSESSEE ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 0 9 / 08 /2016 . - S D / - - S D / - ( SANJAY GARG ) (PRASHANT MAHARISHI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 0 9 / 08 / 2016 A K KEOT COPY FORWARDED TO 1 . APPLICANT 2 . RESPONDENT 3 . CIT 4 . CIT (A) 5 . DR:ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, CHANDIGARH