Shri Deep Poddar, Indore V. The Income Tax 4(1), Indore

ITA 108/IND/2013

• Counselvise Citation: 10822714 RSA 2013
• Duration Of Justice: 10 month(s) 12 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 02-01-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 19-02-2013
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R A VERMA

Judgement Text

1 INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI JOGINDER SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI R.C. SHARMA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.108/IND/2013 A.Y. 2009-10 DEEP PODDAR, 59, AMITESH NAGAR, INDORE PAN AWHPP 6882 E ..APPELLANT V/S. ITO-4(1), INDORE ..RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY NONE REVENUE BY SHRI R.A. VERMA, SR. DR DATE OF HEARING 2 .1.2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 2 .1.2014 ORDER PER BENCH THIS APPEAL IS BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER DA TED 18.12.2012 PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A)-II, INDORE, ON THE GROUNDS AS DETAILED IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. DURING HEARING OF THIS APPEAL, N OBODY IS PRESENT FOR THE ASSESSEE WHEREAS SHRI R.A. VERMA, LD. SR. DR IS PRE SENT FOR THE REVENUE. 2 2. THIS APPEAL WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ON 19.2.20 13 AS IS EVIDENT FROM ORDER SHEET ENTRY OF EVEN DATE. REGISTERED NOT ICE OF HEARING FOR 2.1.2014, SENT TO THE ASSESSEE, AT THE ADDRESS FURN ISHED BY THE ASSESSEE, WAS RETURNED BACK BY THE POSTAL AUTHORITY BEING UNS ERVED. TODAY I.E. 2.1.2014, AT THE TIME OF THE HEARING, THE ASSESSEE NEITHER PRESENTED HIMSELF NOR MOVED ANY ADJOURNMENT PETITION. IT SEEM S THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED TO PURSUE HIS APPEAL, THEREFORE, IT CANNOT BE KEPT PENDING ADJUDICATION FOR INDEFINITE PERIOD. IT WAS THE DUTY OF THE ASSESSEE TO MAKE NECESSARY ARRANGEMENTS FOR EFFECTIVE REPRESENTATION ON THE APPOINTED DATE. MERE FILING OF APPEAL IS NOT ENOUGH RATHER IT REQUIRES EFFECTIVE PROSECUTION ALSO. IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS LIABLE FOR DISMISSAL. OUR VIEW I S SUPPORTED BY THE FOLLOWING JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS: I) IN THE CASE OF CIT V. B.N. BHATTACHARGEE AND ANOTHER, REPORTED IN 118 ITR 461 (RELEVANT PAGES 477 AND 478) WHEREIN THEIR LORDSHIPS HAVE HELD THAT: THE APPEAL DOES NOT MEAN MERELY FILING OF THE APPE AL BUT EFFECTIVELY PURSUING IT. II) IN THE CASE OF ESTATE OF LATE TUKOJIRAO HOLKAR V. C WT, 223 ITR 480 (M.P.) WHILE DISMISSING THE REFERENCE MADE AT T HE INSTANCE 3 OF THE ASSESSEE IN DEFAULT MADE FOLLOWING OBSERVATI ON IN THEIR ORDER: IF THE PARTY, AT WHOSE INSTANCE THE REFERENCE IS M ADE, 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. III) IN THE CASE OF CIT V. MULTIPLAN INDIA LTD., 38 ITD 320 (DEL), THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL, WH ICH WAS FIXED FOR HEARING. BUT ON THE DATE OF HEARING, NOB ODY REPRESENTED THE REVENUE/APPELLANT NOR ANY COMMUNICA TION FOR ADJOURNMENT WAS RECEIVED. THERE WAS NO COMMUNICATI ON OR INFORMATION AS TO WHY THE REVENUE CHOSE TO REMAIN A BSENT ON DATE. THE TRIBUNAL ON THE BASIS OF INHERENT POWERS , TREATED THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE AS UNADMITTED IN VIEW O F THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 19 OF THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RUL ES, 1963. 3. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED FOR NON-PROSECUTION. ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT IN THE PRES ENCE OF LEARNED SENIOR DR ON 2.1.2014. SD/- SD/- (R.C. SHARMA) (JOGINDER SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 2.1.2014 COPY TO: APPELLANT/RESPONDENT/CIT/CIT(A)/DR/GUARD F ILE !VYAS!