Smt. Ganga Bai Anjana, Ujjain V. The ITO 1(2), Ujjain

ITA 113/IND/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 98989 (ITAT-INDORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 6 month(s) 28 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 08-09-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 10-02-2014
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R A VERMA

Judgement Text

SMT. GANGABAI AANJANA ITA NO.113/IND/2014 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI D.T. GARASIA, HONBLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B.C. MEENA, HONBLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 113/IND/2014 A.Y.200809 SMT. GANGA BAI ANJANA VILLAGE DENDIYA PAN ATMPB 0311Q ::: APPELLANT VS INCOME TAX OFFICER 1(2) UJJAIN ::: RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY NONE RESPONDENT BY SHRI R.A. VERMA DATE OF HEARING 8.9.2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 8 .9.2015 O R D E R PER SHRI B.C. MEENA, AM THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE EMANATES FROM THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A), UJJAIN, DATED 31.10.2 013. SMT. GANGABAI AANJANA ITA NO.113/IND/2014 2 2. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, NONE IS PRESENT FOR THE ASSESSEE WHEREAS SHRI R.A. VERMA, LD. SR. DR IS PRESENT FOR TH E REVENUE. 3. THIS APPEAL WAS FIXED FOR HEARING ON 8 TH SEPTEMBER, 2015 FOR WHICH REGISTERED NOTICE FOR HEARING WAS SENT TO THE ASSESSEE AT THE ADDRESS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSE IN FOR M NO. 36. A REQUEST BY FAX WAS RECEIVED FOR ADJOURNMENT BUT NO-ONE WAS PRESENT IN THE COURT WITH THE ORIGINAL ADJOURNMENT APPLICATION WHEN THE CASE WAS CALLED FOR HEARING. HOWEVER, SHRI R.A. VERMA, LEARNED SENIOR DR WAS PRESENT FOR THE REVENUE. 3. IT WAS THE DUTY OF THE ASSESSEE TO MAKE NECESSARY ARRANGEMENTS FOR EFFECTIVE REPRESENTATION ON THE APPOIN TED DATE. MERE FILING OF APPEAL IS NOT ENOUGH RATHER IT REQU IRES EFFECTIVE PROSECUTION ALSO. IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS, W E ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS LIABLE FOR SMT. GANGABAI AANJANA ITA NO.113/IND/2014 3 DISMISSAL. OUR VIEW IS SUPPORTED BY THE FOLLOWING JU DICIAL 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 APPEAL BUT EFFECTIVELY PURSUING IT. II) IN THE CASE OF ESTATE OF LATE TUKOJIRAOHOLKAR V. CWT, 223 ITR 480 (M.P.) WHILE DISMISSING THE REFERENCE MADE AT THE INSTANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IN DEFAULT MADE FOLLOWING OBSERVATION IN THEIR ORDER: 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 REFERENCE, 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, WHICH WAS FIXED FOR HEARING. BUT ON THE DATE OF HEARING, NOBODY REPRESENTED THE REVENUE/APPELLANT NOR ANY COMMUNICATION SMT. GANGABAI AANJANA ITA NO.113/IND/2014 4 FOR ADJOURNMENT WAS RECEIVED. THERE WAS NO COMMUNICATION OR INFORMATION AS TO WHY THE REVENUE CHOSE TO REMAIN ABSENT ON DATE. THE TRIBUNAL ON THE BASIS OF INHERENT POWERS, TREATED THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE AS UNADMITTED IN VIEW OF THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 19 OF THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RULES, 1963. 3. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED FOR NON-PROSECUTION. PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 8.9. 2015 SD SD (D.T. GARASIA) (B.C. MEENA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER 8 TH SEPTEMBER, 2015 DN/-