Sh. Rohit Verma, Ludhiana v. DCIT, Ludhiana

ITA 134/CHANDI/2012 | 2003-2004
Pronouncement Date: 27-07-2012 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 13421514 RSA 2012
Assessee PAN AAMPV6548C
Bench Chandigarh
Appeal Number ITA 134/CHANDI/2012
Duration Of Justice 5 month(s) 24 day(s)
Appellant Sh. Rohit Verma, Ludhiana
Respondent DCIT, Ludhiana
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 27-07-2012
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted B
Tribunal Order Date 27-07-2012
Date Of Final Hearing 25-07-2012
Next Hearing Date 25-07-2012
Assessment Year 2003-2004
Appeal Filed On 03-02-2012
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCH B CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI T.R.SOOD ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NOS.134 & 135 /CHD/2012 (ASSESSMENT YEARS:2003-04 & 2005-06) SH.ROHIT VERMA VS. THE D.C.I.T. PROP.M/S GULAB HOSIERY CIRCLE VI 861 INDUSTRIAL AREA A LUDHIANA. LUDHIANA. PAN: AAMPV6548C (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY : SHRI AKHILESH GUPTA DR DATE OF HEARING : 25.07.2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 27.07.2012 O R D E R PER SUSHMA CHOWLA J.M. : THESE TWO APPEALS BY THE ASSESSEE ARE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-II LUDHIANA D ATED 14.11.2011 RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEARS 2003-04 AND 2005-06 AG AINST THE ORDER PASSED U/S 143(3) OF INCOME TAX ACT 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT). 2. THESE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE WERE FIXED FOR HEA RING ON 14.3.2012 AND THE SAME WERE ADJOURNED TO 15.5.2012 AT THE REQUEST OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. ON 15.5.2 012 THE BENCH DID NOT FUNCTION AND THE APPEALS WERE ADJOURNED FOR 25.7.2012 AND NOTICE OF HEARING WAS SENT TO THE ASSESSEE. ON THE APPOINTED DATE OF HEARING I.E. ON 25.7.2012 NONE APPEARED ON BEHA LF OF THE ASSESSEE NOR ANY APPLICATION WAS MOVED FOR ADJOURNM ENT. IT SEEMS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED IN PURSUING THE APPEALS AND THE INSTANT APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE LIABLE TO BE DISM ISSED. 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 BOTH THE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASS ESSEE ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 27 TH DAY OF JULY 2012. SD/- SD/- (T.R.SOOD) (SUSHMA CHOWLA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED 27 TH JULY 2012 *RATI* COPY TO: THE APPELLANT/THE RESPONDENT/THE CIT(A)/TH E CIT/THE DR. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT CHANDIGARH