SH. GURBHEJ SINGH CHAWLA,LUDHIANA vs. PR. CIT-2, LUDHIANA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1603/CHANDI/2017Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh23 May 2018AY 2014-153 pages

In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

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?

Section 263

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, DIVISION BENCH ‘A’, CHANDIGARH

Before: MS. DIVA SINGH & MS. ANNAPURNA GUPTA & Smt.Harpreet Kaur Chawla,

Hearing: 09.05.2018Pronounced: 09.05.2018

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.

3.

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)

5.

Respectfully following the decisions (supra), we

dismiss the instant appeals filed by the assessees for non-

prosecution.

6.

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.

7.

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

All 13,616 judgments and leading authorities on Section 263 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →