Tripta Rani, Ludhiana V. ITO, W-7(2), Ludhiana

ITA 998/CHANDI/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 112 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5952 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 30 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-12-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 25-07-2018
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MANJIT SINGH SR DR
• Keywords: Condonation of delay

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH SMC,CHANDIGARH , BEFORE: SH. SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER ./ ITA NO. 998/CHD/2018 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010-11 TRIPTA RANI, HOUSE NO. 1820/09, PAVITTAR NAGAR, WARDDI, HAIBOWAL, LUDHIANA. THE ITO, WARD 7(2), LUDHIANA. ./ PAN NO: ASOPR4612D / APPELLANT / RESPONDENT ! ' / ASSESSEE BY : NONE # ! ' / REVENUE BY : SHRI MANJIT SINGH, SR.DR $ % ! &/ DATE OF HEARING : 24.12.2018 '()* ! &/ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 24.12.2018 DATE OF RELEASE OF ORDER : 21.01.2019 !/ ORDER THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN PREFERRED BY THE ASSESS EE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 16.05.2018 OF THE COMMISSIO NER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-3, LUDHIANA [HEREINAFTER REFER RED TO AS CIT(A)]. 2. THE RECORD SHOWS THAT ASSESSEE HAS BEEN SERVED T HE NOTICE FOR DATE OF HEARING FIXED TODAY. HOWEVER, N ONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE AT THE TIME OF H EARING OF THE APPEAL NEITHER ANY APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY HAS BEEN FILED. EARLIER ALSO, THE NOTICE WAS ISSUED BY THE REGISTRY BUT NOBODY PUT IN APPEARANCE. IT, THEREFO RE, APPEARS THAT ASSESSEE IS NO MORE INTERESTED IN PROS ECUTING THE APPEAL AND THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS LIABLE TO BE DISMISSED. ITA-1006/CHD/2018 PAGE 2 OF 2 3. IN MY ABOVE VIEW, I GET SUPPORT FROM THE DECISI ON 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. THE ABOVE VIEW FURTHER FINDS SUPPORT FROM THE FO LLOWING 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], I DISMISS THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR NON-PROSECUTIO N. 6. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISS ED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 24.12.2018. SD/- ( ) (SANJAY GARG) / JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 21.01. 2019 POONAM (+ ! ,- .- / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT 3. $ / / CIT 4. $ / ( )/ THE CIT(A) 5. -01 2 , & 2 , 34516 / DR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 6. 15 7% / GUARD FILE (+ $ / BY ORDER, 8 # / ASSISTANT REGISTRAR