Latest Expert Exchange Queries

Make your inventory and invoicing software GST Ready from Binarysoft
sitemapHome | Registration | Job Portal for CA's | Expert Exchange | Currency Converter | Post Matrimonial Ads | Post Property Ads
News shortcuts: From the Courts | News Headlines | VAT (Value Added Tax) | Service Tax | Sales Tax | Placements & Empanelment | Various Acts & Rules | Latest Circulars | New Forms | Forex | Auditing | Direct Tax | Customs and Excise | ICAI | Corporate Law | Markets | Students | General | Indirect Tax | Mergers and Acquisitions | Continuing Prof. Edu. | Budget Extravaganza | Transfer Pricing
Popular Search: ACCOUNTING STANDARD :: VAT RATES :: cpt :: list of goods taxed at 4% :: due date for vat payment :: form 3cd :: TAX RATES - GOODS TAXABLE @ 4% :: empanelment :: TDS :: ARTICLES ON INPUT TAX CREDIT IN VAT :: ICAI offer Get Windows 7,Office 2010 in Rs.799 Taxes :: VAT Audit :: articles on VAT and GST in India :: Central Excise rule to resale the machines to a new company :: ACCOUNTING STANDARDS
From the Courts »
 Pr CIT vs. Shri Mahila Sewa Sahakari Bank Ltd (Gujarat High Court)
 Pr CIT Vs. PPC Business And Products Pvt Ltd (Delhi High Court)
 Commissioner Of Income Tax Central-Iii Vs. M/s. Radico Khaitan Ltd.
 Mastech Technologies Pvt. Ltd Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax
 Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax Central-3 Vs. Surya Vinayak Industires Ltd.
 Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax Central-3 Vs. J.H. Business India Pvt. Ltd.
 CIT vs. Bhushan Steels And Strips Ltd (Delhi High Court)
 Sumana Bandyopadhyay vs. DDIT (Calcutta High Court)
 Commissioner Of Income Tax, Delhi Vs. Vardhman Industries Ltd.
 Commissioner Of Income Tax, Delhi Vs. Bhushan Steels And Strips Ltd.
 Pr CIT vs. M/s Veer Gems (Gujarat High Court)

Shri Gurdeep Singh,Sahnewal,Ludhiana Vs The ITO, Ward-III(2), Ludhiana
July, 09th 2012


                            ITA No. 341/Chd/2012
                           Assessment Year: 2006-07

Shri Gurdeep Singh,            Vs           The ITO, Ward-III(2),
Sahnewal,                                   Ludhiana


(Appellant)                                       (Respondent)

                  Appellant By              : None
                  Respondent By             : Shri N.K. Saini

                  Date of hearing       : 05.07.2012
                  Date of Pronouncement : 06.07.2012



      This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of

CIT(A)-II, Ludhiana dated 12.01.2012 in confirming the penalty of Rs .

25,000/- levied u/s 271A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') for

the assessment year 2006-07.

2.    The above appeal was fixed for hearing on 05.07.2012.         No body

appeared on behalf of the assessee.     Notice of hearing was sent to the

assessee by RAPD on 17.5.2012.      The above notice has not been received

back un-served. Thus, it is presumed that the notice of hearing has been

served on the assessee. The assessee has also not submitted any application

seeking adjournment of hearing. In view of the above, we presume that the

assessee is not interested to pursue the matter. The laws aid those who are

vigilant, not those who sleep upon their rights. The principle is embodied as


SUBVENIUNT'. Considering the facts and keeping in view the provisions of

Rule 19(2) of the Appellate Tribunal Rules as were considered in 38 ITD 320

(Del) in the case of CIT v Multiplan India Ltd., we treat this appeal as


3.    Similar view has been taken by Hon'ble M.P. High Court in the case of

Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar v CWAT 223 ITR 480 wherein it has been

held as under:-

              "If the party, at whose instance the refer ence is made,
              fails to appear at the hearing, or fails in taking steps
              for preparation of the paper books so as to enable
              hearing of the reference, the court is not bound to
              answer the reference."

4.    Similarly, Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the cas e of New
Diwan Oil Mills Vs CIT (2008) 296 ITR 495 returned the reference
unanswered since the assessee remained absent and there was not any
assistance from the assessee.

5.    Their Lordships of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v B.N.
Bhattarchargee And Another 118 ITR 461 at page 477-78 held that the appeal
does not mean, mere filing of the memo of appeal but effectively pursuing
the same.

6.    So by res pectfully following the view taken in the cases cited (supra),

we dismiss this appeal filed by the assess ee for non prosecution.

7.    In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed.

      Order Pronounced in the Open Court on this 6 t h day of July, 2012

      Sd/-                                               Sd/-
   (T. R. SOOD)                                       (H.L.KARWA)
ACCOUNTANT MEMBER                                   VI CE PRESIDENT
Dated : 6 t h July, 2012
Copy to:
  1.       The Appellant
  2.       The Respondent
  3.       The CIT
  4.       The CIT(A)
  5.       The DR
                          True Copy
                                                   By Order

                                               Assistant Registrar
Home | About Us | Terms and Conditions | Contact Us
Copyright 2017 CAinINDIA All Right Reserved.
Designed and Developed by Binarysoft Technologies Pvt. Ltd.
Outsourcing Test Solutions Software Testing Software Bug Testing Software Issues Tracking Software Issue Fix Software Code Optimization Database Design Optimization

Transfer Pricing | International Taxation | Business Consulting | Corporate Compliance and Consulting | Assurance and Risk Advisory | Indirect Taxes | Direct Taxes | Transaction Advisory | Regular Compliance and Reporting | Tax Assessments | International Taxation Advisory | Capital Structuring | Withholding tax advisory | Expatriate Tax Reporting | Litigation | Badges | Club Badges | Seals | Military Insignias | Emblems | Family Crest | Software Development India | Software Development Company | SEO Company | Web Application Development | MLM Software | MLM Solutions