SH. GURBHEJ SINGH CHAWLA,LUDHIANA vs. PR. CIT-2, LUDHIANA
In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that filing an appeal is not enough; it must be effectively pursued. Since the assessees were not interested in pursuing their appeals, they were dismissed for non-prosecution.
What were the facts?
The assessees filed four appeals against orders passed by the Principal CIT under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act. The appeals were listed for hearing multiple times, but the assessees or their representatives failed to appear and did not cure defects pointed out by the registry.
What were the issues?
Whether appeals can be dismissed for non-prosecution when the appellant fails to appear and cure defects. The importance of effectively pursuing an appeal.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(3)Show listHide 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.
- CIT v. Multiplan India Ltd.2,267 citing38 ITD 320 · 1991 · ITAT
- Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar v. CWT2,040 citing223 ITR 480 · 1997 · HC
- CIT v. B.N. Bhattacharya & Another1,656 citing118 ITR 461 · 1997 · SC
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DIVISION BENCH ‘A’, CHANDIGARH
Before: MS. DIVA SINGH & MS. ANNAPURNA GUPTA & Smt.Harpreet Kaur Chawla,
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH ‘A’, CHANDIGARH
BEFORE MS. DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MS. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.1603/Chd/2017 (Assessment Year : 2014-15) Sh.Gurbhej Singh Chawla, Vs. The Principal CIT-2, 49-A, Sargodha Colony, Ludhiana. Ludhiana. PAN: AAUPC1272A ITA No.1604/Chd/2017 (Assessment Year : 2015-16) Sh.G.P. Singh, HUF Vs. The Principal CIT-2, 141-I, Sarabha Nagar, Ludhiana. Ludhiana. PAN: AADHG5075L ITA No.1605/Chd/2017 (Assessment Year : 2014-15) S.Harcharan Singh, Vs. The Principal CIT-2, Prop. M/s Meenakashi Ludhiana. Auto Industries, Street No.3, Vishwkarma Colony, Ludhiana. PAN: AFMPS5525B & ITA No.1606/Chd/2017 (Assessment Year : 2014-15) Smt.Harpreet Kaur Chawla, Vs. The Principal CIT-2, 49-A, Pakhowal Road Ludhiana. Sargodha Colony, Ludhiana. PAN: ADRPC8005D (Appellant) (Respondent)
Appellant by : None Respondent by : Dr.Gulshan Raj, CIT DR Date of hearing : 09.05.2018 Date of Pronouncement : 09.05.2018 ORDER PER BENCH: This bunch of four appeals have been filed by
different assessees against the orders passed u/s 263 of
the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the Pr.CIT, Ludhiana, all
dated 20.9.2017
2 . T h e a p p e a l s o f t h e a s s e s s e e s w e r e f i x e d f o r
h e a r i n g o n 1 0 . 4 . 2 0 1 8 a n d w e r e a d j o u r n e d t o 9 . 5 . 2 0 1 8
a s n o n e p u t i n p r e s e n c e o n b e h a l f o f t h e a s s e s s e e .
However, again on the appointed date of hearing i.e. o n
9 . 5 . 2 0 1 8 n o n e a p p e a r e d o n b e h a l f o f t h e a s s e s s e e s n o r
a n y a p p l i c a t i o n w a s m o v e d f o r a d j o u r n m e n t . T h e
r e c o r d s h o w s t h a t t h e a p p e a l s o f t h e a s s e s s e e s w e r e
s h o w n t o b e d e f e c t i v e b y t h e R e g i s t r y w h i c h w a s
p o i n t e d o u t o n 1 0 . 1 . 2 0 1 8 b u t t i l l d a t e , t h e a s s e s s e e s
h a v e n o t m a d e a n y a t t e m p t t o c u r e t h e s a m e . It seems
that the assessees are not interested in pursuing the
appeals and the instant appeals filed by the assessees are
liable to be dismissed.
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 f iling of the appeal but effectively pursuing it.” 4. 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)
Respectfully following the decisions (supra), we
dismiss the instant appeals filed by the assessees for non-
prosecution.
Before parting, it is appropriate to add that in
the eventuality the assessees are able to cure the defect
and 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.
In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee are
dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 9 t h May,
2018.
Sd/- Sd/-
(DIVA SINGH) (ANNAPURNA GUPTA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated : 23rd May, 2018 *Rati* Copy to: 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. The CIT(A) 4. The CIT 5. The DR Assistant Registrar, ITAT, Chandigarh
More judgments on Section 263
- Gillette India Limited, Mumbai vs Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, JaipurITA 1316/JPR/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Neo Structo Construction P. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs The Pr. CIT- 3, AhmedabadITA 1216/AHD/2026[2015-2016]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2015-2016
- Vimal Harilal Baldania, Gandhidham vs The ITO Ward 2, GandhidhamITA 770/RJT/2025[2017-18]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
- J.D. Marketing, Kolkata vs ITO, Ward 37(1), KolkataITA 1493/KOL/2026[2015-2016]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2015-2016
- J.D. Marketing, Kolkata vs ITO, Ward 37(1), KolkataITA 1492/KOL/2026[2013-2014]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2013-2014
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S. Mehra Mac Industries Private Limited vs. The Deputy State Tax OfficerTelangana · 30 Oct 2026
- Santosh Das And Anr. vs. Union Of INDIACalcutta · 30 Oct 2026
- M/S Rama Krishna Industries vs. State Of Hp And OthersHimachal Pradesh · 30 Oct 2026
- Smt Usha W/O Shri Tarun vs. Union Of INDIARajasthan · 29 Oct 2026
- M/S Maruti Nandan Minetech Private Limited vs. The Joint CommissionerRajasthan · 29 Oct 2026