SH. IMRANJIT SINGH,LUDHIANA vs. PR. CIT-3, LUDHIANA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1504/CHANDI/2017Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh16 April 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 requires effective prosecution, not just the act of filing. Since the assessee was avoiding service and not pursuing the appeal, it was liable to be dismissed.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal against an order of the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax. Despite multiple notices sent via registered post, the assessee failed to appear for the hearing or claim the notices.

What were the issues?

Whether an appeal can be dismissed for non-prosecution when the appellant fails to appear or pursue the matter despite proper service attempts.

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: SHRI SANJAY GARG & MS. ANNAPURNA GUPTA

For Respondent: Shri Gulshan Raj, CIT DR
Hearing: 16.04.2018Pronounced: 16.04.2018

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH ‘A’, CHANDIGARH

BEFORE SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MS. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.1504/Chd/2017 (Assessment Year : 2014-15) Sh.Imranjit Singh, Vs. The Pr.CIT-3, Prop. M/s Iris International, Ludhiana. 198-R, Model Town, Ludhiana. PAN: AZVPS0911L (Appellant) (Respondent)

Appellant by : None Respondent by : Shri Gulshan Raj, CIT DR Date of hearing :16.04.2018 Date of Pronouncement :16.04.2018

ORDER Per Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member :

This appeal has been preferred by the assessee against

the order of Ld. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-3,

Ludhiana (hereinafter referred to as (‘Ld.Pr.CIT’) dated

23.8.2017 relating to assessment year 2014-15.

2.

Though this appeal has been filed by the assessee,

however, the assessee has never bothered to attend the

same on the date of hearing. Even notices have been sent

to the assessee three times through registered post i.e. on

26.12.2017, 15.1.2018 and 13.2.2018, which have been

received back with almost identical remarks ‘out of station’,

‘not met’ followed by N.D.’, (Notice delivered) and then

returned back as 'unclaimed’, which means that despite

notices the addressee has not come to claim the registered

post. The aforesaid three notices served through the postal

authority upon the assessee, prove that the assessee is

avoiding the service of notice which, surprisingly is related

to the hearing of the appeal filed by the assessee himself.

I t seems that the assessee is not interested in pursuing

the appeal and the instant appeal filed by the assessee is

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 filing 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 appeal filed by the assessee for non-

prosecution.

6.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on ……………

Sd/- Sd/- (ANNAPURNA GUPTA) (SANJAY GARG) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER

Dated : 16th April, 2018 *Rati* Copy to: 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. The CIT(A) 4. The CIT 5. The DR Assistant Registrar, ITAT, Chandigarh

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →