Mehul Ratilal Shah, Bangalore V. DCIT, Bangalore

ITA 1/BANG/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 80742 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 9 month(s) 30 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-10-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 16-10-2014
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 01-01-2014
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: P DHIVAHAR JT CITIDR

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N.V. VASUDEVAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.1/BANG/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010-11 SHRI MEHUL RATILAL SHAH, 146/14/6, TOOLS ENGINEERING CO., NIJAGUNAGOWDA INDL. ESTATE, SAJJEPALYA, BANGALORE 560 091. PAN: AEUPS 8538M VS. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(1), BANGALORE. APPELLANT RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY : SHRI P. DHIVAHAR, JT. CIT-I(DR) DATE OF HEARING : 16.10.2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 31.10.2014 O R D E R PER ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ASSAILS THE OR DER PASSED BY THE CIT(APPEALS) ON 26.8.2013. THERE IS A DELAY OF 36 DAYS IN FILING THE APPEAL AND ASSESSEE HAS FILED APPLICATION ALONG WITH AFFID AVIT FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY. ITA NO.1/BANG/2014 PAGE 2 OF 3 2. NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE AT THE T IME OF HEARING ON 16.10.2014, DESPITE SERVICE OF NOTICE THROUGH RPAD. NOR THERE IS ANY APPLICATION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE SEEKING ADJOURNME NT. IT APPEARS ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED IN PROSECUTING THE APPEA L. 3. CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND KEEPING IN VIEW THE PR OVISIONS OF RULE 19(2) OF THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RULES AS WERE CONSIDERED IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. MULTIPLAN INDIA LTD., (38 ITD 320)(DEL), WE TREAT THIS APPEAL AS UNADMITTED. SIMILAR VIEW HAS BEEN TAKEN BY THE HONBLE MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF ESTATE OF LATE TUKOJIRAO HOLKAR VS. CWT (223 ITR 480) WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN HELD AS UNDER: IF THE PARTY, AT WHOSE INSTANCE THE REFERENCE 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 REFE RENCE, THE COURT IS NOT BOUND TO ANSWER THE REFERENCE. 4. THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. B. BHATTACHARJEE & ANOTHER (118 ITR 461 AT PAGE 477-478) HELD THAT THE APPEAL DOES NOT MEAN, MERE FILING OF THE M EMO OF APPEAL BUT EFFECTIVELY PURSUING THE SAME. 5. FOLLOWING THE RATIO OF THE AFORESAID DECISIONS, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED IN LIMINE FOR NON-PROSECUTION. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE IS AT LIBERTY TO MOVE THE TRIBUNAL FOR APP ROPRIATE REMEDY, SHOWING ITA NO.1/BANG/2014 PAGE 3 OF 3 REASONABLE AND SUFFICIENT CAUSE FOR SUCH NON-APPEAR ANCE ON THE APPOINTED DATE. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED . PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 31 ST DAY OF OCTOBER , 2014 . SD/- SD/- ( N.V. VASUDEVAN ) ( ABRAHAM P. GEORG E ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEM BER BANGALORE, DATED, THE 31 ST OCTOBER, 2014 . /D S/ COPY TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT, BANGALORE. 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR / SENIOR PRIVATE SECRETARY ITAT, BANGALORE.