M/s Krishna Goyal Hosiery Works, Ludhiana V. DCIT, Ludhiana

ITA 927/CHANDI/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6749 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 05-10-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: Not Allotted
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 02-06-2017
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH A, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MS. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.927/CHD/2017 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008-09) M/S KRISHNA GOYAL HOSIERY WORKS, VS. THE D.C.I.T., 171-INDUSTRIAL AREA A, CENTRAL CIRCLE-II, LUDHIANA. LUDHIANA. PAN: AABFK2583K (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY : SMT.ZEENIA HANDA, ADDL. CIT DR DATE OF HEARING :05.10.2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT :05.10.2017 ORDER PER ANNAPURNA GUPTA, A.M. : THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS), BATHINDA DATED 7.2.2017 RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09. 2. THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE WAS FIXED FOR HEARING ON 27.7.2017 BUT NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESS EE ON THAT DATE. FRESH NOTICE OF HEARING FIXING THE APPEA L ON 5.10.2017 WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, ON T HE APPOINTED DATE OF HEARING I.E. ON 5.10.2017, NONE A PPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. AN APPLICATION SEEKING ADJOURNMENT ON THE GROUND THAT SINCE THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT IN TOWN REQUISITE DOCUMENTS AND INFORMATION COULD NOT BE PROCURED, WAS FILED. THE SAME WAS REJECTED AND IT SEEMS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTE RESTED 2 IN PURSUING 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 DECIS ION OF THE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. B.N. BHATTACH ARGEE AND ANOTHER, REPORTED IN 118 ITR 461 (RELEVANT PAGE S 477 & 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 VS. MULTIPLAN INDIA (P) LTD., 38 ITD 320 (DEL) II) ESTATE OF LATE TUKOJIRAO HOLKAR VS.CWT, 223 ITR 480 (MP) 5. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISIONS (SUPRA), WE DISMISS THE INSTANT APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE FO R NON- PROSECUTION. WE MAY ADD THAT THE ASSESSEE IS AT LIB ERTY TO PRAY FOR A RECALL OF THE ORDER IN CASE IT IS SERIOU S IN PURSUING THE APPEAL. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT. SD/- SD/- (SANJAY GARG) (ANNAPURNA GUPTA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED : 5 TH OCTOBER, 2017 *RATI* COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT(A) 4. THE CIT 5. THE DR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 3