Sh. Rajinder Mittal, Panchkula V. ACIT, Chandigarh

MA 105/CHANDI/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6545 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 8 month(s) 18 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 11-05-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: Not Allotted
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 24-08-2016
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MANJIT SINGH

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH B, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MS. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M.A.NO.105/CHD/2016 IN ITA NO.581/CHD/2013 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10) SHRI RAJINDER MITTAL, VS. THE A.C.I.T., H.NO.666, SECTOR 21, CENTRAL CIRCLE-II, PANCHKULA. CHANDIGARH. PAN: ABJPM-7932R (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPLICANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY : SHRI MANJIT SINGH, SR.DR DATE OF HEARING : 11.05.2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 11.05.2018 ORDER PER ANNAPURNA GUPTA, AM : THIS MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION IS FILED BY THE APPLICANT FOR RECALLING OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNA L DATED 25.10.2013 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10, WHICH WAS DECIDED AND DISMISSED EX-PARTE. 2. THE PRESENT MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION FILED BY T HE ASSESSEE WAS FIXED FOR HEARING ON 24.3.2017 AND THE SAME WAS ADJOURNED ON SEVERAL DATES THEREAFTER EITHER SI NCE THE ASSESSEE DID NOT PUT IN PRESENCE OR FOR OTHER REASO NS. FINALLY, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE WAS ADJOURNED T O 11.5.2018. HOWEVER, ON THE APPOINTED DATE OF HEARI NG I.E. ON 11.5.2018, NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESS EE NOR ANY APPLICATION WAS MOVED FOR ADJOURNMENT. IT SEEMS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED IN PURSUING THE 2 MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION AND THE INSTANT APPLICATI ON 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 MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR NON-PROSECUTION. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION FI LED BY THE APPLICANT IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT. SD/- SD/- (SANJAY GARG) (ANNAPURNA GUPTA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED : 11 TH MAY, 2018 *RATI* COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT(A) 4. THE CIT 5. THE DR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 3