SONA AGENCIES PVT. LTD.,LUDHIANA vs. ITO, W-5(4), LUDHIANA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 64/CHANDI/2018Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh15 January 2019AY 2008-093 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The tribunal held that the assessee is not interested in pursuing the appeal. Following various judicial precedents, the appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was listed for hearing, but no one appeared on behalf of the assessee. Notices sent to the assessee were returned with the remark 'Insufficient address'.

What were the issues?

Whether the appeal should be dismissed for non-prosecution due to the assessee's failure to appear and provide a correct address.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250(6)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(3)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, CHANDIGARH BENCH ‘B’, CHANDIGARH

Before: SHRI SANJAY GARG, JM & SMT.ANNAPURNA GUPTA, AM

Hearing: 15.01.2019Pronounced: 15.01.2019

आदेश/ORDER Per Annapurna Gupta, Accountant Member :

The present appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Ludhiana (in short ‘CIT(A)’ dated 27.11.2017 passed u/s 250(6) of the Income Tax At, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act’).

2.

The appeal of the assessee was fixed for hearing for today i.e. 15.1.2019 but none appeared on behalf of the assessee. It was noted that the notice issued to the assessee through Speed Post, for hearing of the appeal, was returned back with the remark “Insufficient address”. Also an earlier notice issued dated 07.08.2018 had also returned back with the same remark though the address in both the

2 ITA No.64/Chd/2018 A.Y.2008-09

notices was the same as mentioned in the assessment order,

the CIT(A)’s order and even in Form No.36 filed by the

assessee before us. Even the hearing fixed on 07.08.2018

had remained unattended by the assessee.

3.

It seems from the above that the assessee is not

interested in pursuing the appeal and the instant appeal

filed by the assessee is liable to be dismissed.

4.

In our above view, we get support from the decision of

the Apex Court in the case of CIT Vs. B.N. Bhattachargee

and Another, reported in 118 ITR 461 (relevant pages 477 &

478) wherein their Lordships have held that :

“ The appeal does not mean merely filing of the appeal but effectively pursuing it.” 5. Our view further finds support from the following 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) 6. Respectfully following the decisions (supra), we

dismiss the instant appeal filed by the assessee for non-

prosecution.

7.

Before parting, it is appropriate to add that in the

eventuality the assessee is able to show that there was a

reasonable cause for non-representation on the date of

hearing, it would be at liberty to pray for a recall of this

order by making an appropriate prayer. Said order was

pronounced in the Open Court at the time of hearing itself.

3 ITA No.64/Chd/2018 A.Y.2008-09

8.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed.

Order pronounced in the Open Court on 15.01.2019.

Sd/- Sd/- संजय गग� अ�नपणा� ग�ता (ANNAPURNA GUPTA) (SANJAY GARG) �याय�क सद�य/ Judicial Member लेखा सद�य/ Accountant Member �दनांक /Dated: 15th January, 2019 *रती*

आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत/ Copy of the order forwarded to :

1.

अपीलाथ�/ The Appellant 2. ��यथ�/ The Respondent 3. आयकर आय�त / CIT 4. आयकर आय�त (अपील)/ The CIT(A) 5. �वभागीय ��त�न�ध, आयकर अपील�य आ�धकरण, च�डीगढ़/ DR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 6. गाड� फाईल/ Guard File

आदेशानसार / By order, सहायक पंजीकार/ Assistant Registrar

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →