Kumar Builders, V. DCIT, Ludhiana

ITA 965/CHANDI/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7003 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 10-08-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: Not Allotted
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 09-06-2017
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MANJIT SINGH
• Keywords: Condonation of delay

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH, CHANDIGARH BEFORE MS. DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MS. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.965/CHD/2017 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10) KUMAR BUILDERS, VS. THE D.C.I.T., 298, ISLAMIA SCHOOL ROAD, CIRCLE 2, LUDHIANA. LUDHIANA. NOW AT KOTKAPURA. PAN: AAJFM2533P (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY : SHRI MANJIT SINGH, DR DATE OF HEARING : 01.08.2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 10.08.2017 O R D E R PER ANNAPURNA GUPTA, A.M . : THIS APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS)-I, LUDHIANA DATED 7.10.2016 RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YE AR 2009-10. 2. THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE WAS FIXED FOR HEARING ON 1.8.2017. HOWEVER, ON THE APPOINTED DATE OF HEARING I.E. ON 1.8.2017, NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE N OR ANY APPLICATION WAS MOVED FOR ADJOURNMENT. FURTHER THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, WE FIND, IS TIME BARRED BY 1 72 DAYS AND NO APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY WAS FIL ED BY THE ASSESSEE. IT IS ALSO NOTICED THAT DESPITE ISSUE OF DEFECT NOTICE TO THE ASSESSEE, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT REMOVE D THE DEFECTS. 2 3. IT SEEMS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED IN PURSUING THE APPEAL AND THE INSTANT APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS LIABLE TO BE DISMISSED. 4. 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. 5. OUR VIEW FURTHER FINDS SUPPORT FROM THE FOLLOWI NG 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) 6. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISIONS (SUPRA), W E DISMISS THE INSTANT APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE FO R NON- PROSECUTION. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT. SD/- SD/- (DIVA SINGH) (ANNAPURNA GUPTA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED : 10 TH AUGUST, 2017 *RATI* COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT(A) 4. THE CIT 5. THE DR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH