Sub Registrar, Jind v. DIT (CIB), Chandigarh

ITA 1023/CHANDI/2011 | 2005-2006
Pronouncement Date: 31-07-2012 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 102321514 RSA 2011
Bench Chandigarh
Appeal Number ITA 1023/CHANDI/2011
Duration Of Justice 9 month(s) 5 day(s)
Appellant Sub Registrar, Jind
Respondent DIT (CIB), Chandigarh
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 31-07-2012
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted A
Tribunal Order Date 31-07-2012
Date Of Final Hearing 21-04-2014
Next Hearing Date 21-04-2014
Assessment Year 2005-2006
Appeal Filed On 25-10-2011
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCH A CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI T.R.SOOD ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NOS.1023 TO 1027 /CHD/2011 (ASSESSMENT YEARS:2005-06 TO 2009-10) SUB REGISTRAR VS. THE DIT (CIB) UCHANA JIND. CHANDIGARH. PAN: (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY : SHRI AKHILESH GUPTA DR DATE OF HEARING : 31.07.2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 31.07.2012 O R D E R PER SUSHMA CHOWLA J.M. : THESE FIVE APPEALS BY THE ASSESSEE ARE AGAINST THE CONSOLIDATED ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS) R OHTAK DATED 23.08.2011 RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEARS 2005-06 TO 2009-10 AGAINST PENALTY LEVIED UNDER SECTION 271FA OF INCOME TAX AC T 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT). 2. THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE WERE FIXED FOR HEARI NG ON 21.12.2011 ON WHICH DATE THE BENCH DID NOT FUNCTION . THE HEARING OF THE APPEALS WERE ADJOURNED TO 31.7.2012 FOR WHIC H NOTICE OF HEARING WAS SENT TO THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER NONE AP PEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE APPOINTED DATE OF HEA RING I.E. 31.7.2012 NOR ANY APPLICATION WAS MOVED FOR ADJOUR NMENT. IT SEEMS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED IN PURSUI NG THE APPEALS AND THE INSTANT APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE 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. BHATTACHARGEE AND ANOTHER REPORTED 2 IN 118 ITR 461 (RELEVANT PAGES 477 & 478) WHEREIN T HEIR 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 APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR NON-PROSE CUTION. 6. IN THE RESULT ALL THE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSE SSEE ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 31 ST DAY OF JULY 2012. SD/- SD/- (T.R. SOOD) (SUSHMA CHOWLA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED 31 ST JULY 2012 *RATI* COPY TO: THE APPELLANT/THE RESPONDENT/THE CIT(A)/TH E CIT/THE DR. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT CHANDIGARH