Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, CHANDIGARH
Before: Sh. SANJAY GARG
आदेश/ORDER
Per Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member :
The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 14.05.2018 of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Ludhiana [hereinafter referred to as CIT(A)].
The record shows that assessee has been served the notice for date of hearing fixed today. However, none appeared on behalf of the assessee at the time of hearing of the appeal. It, therefore, appears that assessee is no more interested in prosecuting the appeal and the appeal filed by the assessee is liable to be dismissed.
In my above view, I get support from the decision of the Apex Court in the case of CIT v. B.N. Bhattachargee and
ITA-1006/CHD/2018 Page 2 of 2
another, reported in 118 ITR 46l [relevant pages 477 & 478]
wherein their Lordships have held that:
“The appeal does not mean merely filing of the appeal but effectively pursuing it.”
The above view further finds support from the following decisions also:
i) CIT v. Multiplan India (P) Ltd: 38 ITD 320 (Del) ii) Estate of late Tukojirao Holkar v. CWT: 223 ITR 480(MP)
Respectfully following the decisions [supra], I dismiss
the appeal filed by the assessee for non-prosecution.
In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed.
Order pronounced in the Open Court.
Sd/- (संजय गग� ) (SANJAY GARG) �या�यक सद�य/ Judicial Member
Dated: 21.01.2019 “Poonam” आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत/ Copy of the order forwarded to : अपीलाथ�/ The Appellant 1. ��यथ�/ The Respondent 2. आयकर आयु�त/ CIT 3. आयकर आयु�त (अपील)/ The CIT(A) 4. �वभागीय ��त�न�ध, आयकर अपील�य आ�धकरण, च�डीगढ़/ DR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 5. गाड� फाईल/ Guard File 6.
आदेशानुसार/ By order, सहायक पंजीकार/ Assistant Registrar