Sh. Raj Partap Singh, Mohali V. ITO, Ludhiana

MA 33/CHANDI/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7061 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 4 month(s) 6 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 03-08-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: Not Allotted
• Next Hearing Date: 09-09-2016
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 28-03-2016
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: GE E TINDERMANN

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.33/CHD/2016 IN ITA NO.188/CHD/2013 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008-09) RAJ PARTAP SIGH, VS. THE I.T.O., 330, SHIVALIK CITY, WARD VI(3), SECTOR 127, KHARAR LUDHIANA. (MOHALI) PAN: DFJPS 2564 Q (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPLICANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY : MS. GEETINDER MANN, SR.DR DATE OF HEARING : 03.08.2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 03.08.2018 ORDER PER ANNAPURNA GUPTA, AM : THIS MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION IS FILED BY THE APPLICANT FOR RECALLING OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNA L DATED 6.9.2013 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09. 2. THE PRESENT MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION FILED BY T HE ASSESSEE ON 28.03.2016 AND WAS FIXED FOR HEARING SI NCE THEN ON A NUMBER OF OCCASIONS BUT WAS ADJOURNED EIT HER SINCE THE ASSESSEE DID NOT PUT IN PRESENCE OR FOR O THER REASONS. ON 23.02.2018 THE HEARING OF THE M.A. WAS ADJOURNED TO 20.04.2018 ON THE WRITTEN REQUEST OF T HE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, WHEN AGAIN NONE APPEAR ED. THEREAFTER THE HEARING WAS ADJOURNED TO 3.8.2018, W HEN AGAIN NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE NOR A NY APPLICATION WAS MOVED FOR ADJOURNMENT. IT SEEMS THA T 2 THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED IN PURSUING THE 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 : 3 RD AUGUST, 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