Sh. Pardeep Khosla, Ambala City V. ACIT, Ambala

ITSSA 2/CHANDI/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 122 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0976 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 14-09-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 14-09-2015
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 05-03-2015
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: D S SIDHU

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MS.RANO JAIN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITSS NO. 2/CHD/2015 BLOCK PERIOD 01.04.1988 TO 31.3.1998 SHRI PARDEEP KHOSLA, VS THE DCIT, 630/6, CIRCULAR ROAD, AMBALA. AMBALA CITY. PAN: ACFPK1101K & ITSS NO. 3/CHD/2015 BLOCK PERIOD 01.04.1988 TO 31.3.1998 SMT. PREM LATA KHOSLA, VS THE ACIT, 630/6, CIRCULAR ROAD, AMBALA. AMBALA CITY. PAN: ACUPK1193N (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY : SHRI D.S. SIDHU DATE OF HEARING : 14.09.2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 14.09.2015 O R D E R PER BHAVNESH SAINI,JM BOTH THE APPEALS BY DIFFERENT ASSESSEES ARE DIRECTE D AGAINST DIFFERENT ORDERS OF LD. CIT(APPEALS) PANCHK ULA DATED 31.12.2014 FOR THE ABOVE BLOCK PERIOD CHALLENGING T HE LEVY OF THE PENALTY UNDER SECTION 158BFA(2) OF THE INCOME T AX ACT. 2 2. BOTH THE APPEALS WERE ADJOURNED TWICE ON THE REQ UEST BY LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, ON THE DATE FIXED FOR HEARING ON 14.09.2015, NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF T HE ASSESSEE. IT, THEREFORE, APPEARS THAT BOTH THE ASS ESSEES ARE NO MORE INTERESTED IN PROSECUTING THE APPEALS, THEREFO RE, BOTH THE APPEALS ARE LIABLE TO BE DISMISSED. 3. IN OUR ABOVE VIEW, WE GET SUPPORT FROM THE DECI SION 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. OUR VIEW FURTHER FINDS SUPPORT FROM THE FOLLOWIN G 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], WE DISMISS THE INSTANT APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEES FOR NON- PROSECUTION. 6. IN THE RESULT, BOTH APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEES ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT. SD/- SD/- (RANO JAIN) (BH AVNESH SAINI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBE R DATED: 14 TH SEPT.,2015. POONAM COPY TO: THE APPELLANT, THE RESPONDENT, THE CIT(A), THE CIT, DR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT CHANDIGARH