Gautam Dhall, Ludhiana V. DCIT, Ludhiana

ITA 977/CHANDI/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 130 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8296 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 8 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-02-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: Not Allotted
• Next Hearing Date: 28-02-2017
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 12-09-2016
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S K MITTAL

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.975/CHD/2016 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10) AKHIL DHALL, VS. THE D.C.I.T., 2551, URBAN ESTATE, CENTRAL CIRCLE-I, PHASE I, DUGRI, LUDHIANA. LUDHIANA. PAN: AIZPD7165J ITA NO.976/CHD/2016 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10) SUNITA DHALL, VS. THE D.C.I.T., 2551, URBAN ESTATE, CENTRAL CIRCLE-I, PHASE I, DUGRI, LUDHIANA. LUDHIANA. PAN: ABPPD2273A ITA NO.977/CHD/2016 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10) GAUTAM DHALL, VS. THE D.C.I.T., 2549, URBAN ESTATE, CENTRAL CIRCLE-I, PHASE I, DUGRI, LUDHIANA. LUDHIANA. PAN: AAOPD9523D ITA NO.978/CHD/2016 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10) MEENA DHALL, VS. THE D.C.I.T., 2549, URBAN ESTATE, CENTRAL CIRCLE-I, PHASE I, DUGRI, LUDHIANA. LUDHIANA. PAN: ABDPD9852H AND ITA NOS.979 & 980/CHD/2016 (ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2009-10 & 2010-11) AANCHAL DHALL, VS. THE D.C.I.T., 2549, URBAN ESTATE, CENTRAL CIRCLE-I, PHASE I, DUGRI, LUDHIANA. LUDHIANA. PAN: AIKPD1405G (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) 2 APPELLANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY : SHRI S.K. MITTAL, SR.DR DATE OF HEARING : 21.02.2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 21.02.2017 O R D E R PER ANNAPURNA GUPTA, A..M. : THIS BUNCH OF SIX APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE SEPARATE ORDERS OF LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-5, LUDHIANA EACH DATED 13,.6.2016 RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEARS 2009-10 AND 2010-11. 2. THESE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE WERE FIXED FOR HEARING ON 8.12.2016 AND WERE ADJOURNED TO 21.2.201 7 AT THE REQUEST OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, ON THE APPOINTED DATE OF HEARING I.E. ON 21.2.2017, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE FILED A N APPLICATION DATED 20.2.2017 FOR ADJOURNMENT STATING THAT DUE TO REASONS BEYOND HIS CONTROL HE WOULD NOT BE IN A POSITION TO APPEAR ON THE DATE FIXED FOR HEARING. ADJOURNMENT ON THE EARLIER DATE I.E. 8.12.2016 WAS ALSO SOUGHT GIVING IDENTICAL REASONS. 2. WE FIND THAT THE REASONS FOR SEEKING ADJOURNMENT TIME AND AGAIN ARE VAGUE AND IT SEEMS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED IN PURSUING THE APPEALS. THE INSTANT APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE, THEREFORE, LIABLE TO BE DISMISSED. 3 3. IN OUR ABOVE VIEW, WE GET SUPPORT FROM THE DECISION OF THE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. B .N. BHATTACHARGEE AND ANOTHER, REPORTED IN 118 ITR 461 (RELEVANT PAGES 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 FOLLOWING 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), W E DISMISS THE INSTANT APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE F OR NON- PROSECUTION. 6. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT. SD/- SD/- (DIVA SINGH) (ANNAPURNA GUPTA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED : 21 ST FEBRUARY, 2017 *RATI* COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT(A) 4. THE CIT 5. THE DR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, 4 ITAT, CHANDIGARH