Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DIVISION BENCH ‘A’, CHANDIGARH
Before: SHRI SANJAY GARG & MS. ANNAPURNA GUPTA
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.
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.
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.
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