Kamalnarayan Kishanlal Mandhani (HUF), Nirmal V. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Nirmal

ITA 1152/Hyd/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 117 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1542 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 14-06-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB-A
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 04-06-2018
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ESTHER N HANGHAL

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH A HYDERABAD BEFORE SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMEBR ITA NO. 1152/HYD/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2014-15 KAMALNARAYAN KISHNLAL MANDHANI, NIRMAL. PAN AABHM4805L VS. ITO WARD (1), NIRMAL. (APPLICANT) (RES PONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : NONE REVENUE BY : SMT. ESTHER N. HANGHAL DATE OF HEARING : 03-06-2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 14-06-2019 ORDER PER P. MADHAVI DEVI, J.M.: THIS IS ASSESSEES APPEAL FOR THE A.Y 2014-15 AGAI NST THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A)-5, HYDERABAD DATED 09.0 3.2018. 2. IT IS FOUND THAT THIS APPEAL WAS FILED ON 16.05. 2018 AND THE REGISTRY HAD POINTED OUT CERTAIN DEFECTS IN THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE APPEAL MEMO ALON G WITH THE DEFECT NOTICE WAS ISSUED AND SERVED ON THE ASSE SSEE. MR. TEJPRAKASH TOSHNIWAL, ADVOCATE REPRESENTING THE ASSESSEE FILED HIS VAKALAT ON 04.06.2018. HE ALSO APPEARED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL ON 11.01.2019 AND SOUGHT TIME T O FILE 2 ITA.NO. 1152/HYD/2018 KAMALNARAYAN KISHNLAL MANDHANI, NIRMAL. REVISED FORM 36. HOWEVER, DEFECTS WERE NOT RECTIFI ED TILL DATE EVEN THOUGH THE MATTER HAS BEEN ADJOURNED TWIC E I.E ON 25.01.2019 AND 03.06.2019. TODAY I.E. ON 03/06/ 2019, NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE NOR IS THER E RECTIFICATION OF THE DEFECTS POINTED OUT BY THE REG ISTRY. IT HAS BEEN HELD BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF B.N. BHTTACHARGEE & ANR., 118 ITR 461 THAT AP PEAL DOES NOT MEAN ONLY FILING OF MEMO OF APPEAL BUT ALSO PURSUING IT EFFECTIVELY. IN CASES WHERE THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT WANT TO PURSUE THE APPEAL, COURT/TRIBUNAL HAVE INHERENT POW ER TO DISMISS THE APPEAL FOR NON-PROSECUTION AS HELD BY H ONBLE HIGH COURT OF MUMBAI IN THE CASE OF M/S CHEMIPOL VS. UNI ON OF INDIA IN EXCISE APPEAL NO. 62 OF 2009. THEREFORE, RESPECT FULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF MULTIPLAN (INDIA) LTD., (38 ITD 320) AND MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT IN LATE TUKOJIRAO HOLKAR (223 ITR 480), WE DISMISS THI S APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE FOR WANT OF PROPER PROSECUTION OF APPE AL PAPERS AS WELL AS NON PROSECUTION. 3. THE ASSESSEE IS AT LIBERTY TO SEEK RECALL OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL ALONG WITH THE PAPERS RECTIFY THE OF D EFECTS AS WELL AS WITH SUFFICIENT REASONS FOR NON APPEARANCE ON THE DATE OF HEARING. ACCORDINGLY, APPEAL OF THE ASSESS EE IS DISMISSED. 3 ITA.NO. 1152/HYD/2018 KAMALNARAYAN KISHNLAL MANDHANI, NIRMAL. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 14 TH JUNE, 2019 SD/- SD/- (S. RIFAUR RAHMAN) (P. MADHAVI DEVI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER HYDERABAD, DATED: 14 TH JUNE, 2019 KRK 1) TEJPRAKASH TOSHNIWAL, ADV. # 4-1-B/4, RAMKOTE, HYDERABAD 500 095. 2) ITO, WARD (1) NIRMAL. 3) CIT(A)-5, HYDERABAD. 4) PR.CIT-5, HYDERABAD. 5) THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, I.T.A.T., H YDERABAD. 6) GUARD FILE.