Veena Kamisetty, Hyd, Hyderabad V. ITO,Ward-9(3), Hyderabad, Hyderabad

ITA 1175/HYD/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6026 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 08-03-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 08-03-2016
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 21-09-2015
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: NIKHIL KUMAR GOVILA

Judgement Text

THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH A, HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI P. MADHAVI DEVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 1175/HYD/2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2004-05 VEENA KAMISETTY, HYDERABAD PAN BGBPK 6703 N VS. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD 9(3), HYDERABAD (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : NONE REVENUE BY : SHRI NIKHIL KUMAR GOVILA DATE OF HEARING : 08-03-2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 08-03-2016 O R D E R PER S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, A.M.: THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST O RDER DATED 26/05/2015 OF LD. CIT(A)-VII, HYDERABAD, FOR THE A Y 2004-05. 2. INITIALLY THIS APPEAL WAS FIXED FOR HEARING ON 13/1 /2015 AND THE CASE WAS ADJOURNED TO 02/12/2015 AT THE REQUEST OF THE A SSESSEE TO FILE RELEVANT DOCUMENTS. AGAIN, THE CASE WAS ADJOURNED TO 08/03/2 016 FROM 02/12/2015 AT THE REQUEST OF THE ASSESSEE, WHICH WAS INFORMED TO BOTH THE PARTIES IN THE OPEN COURT. ON THE DATE OF HEARING ON 08/03/20 16, NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE NOR THERE WAS ANY REQUEST FO R ADJOURNMENT. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED IN PROSECUTING ITS APPEAL. IT HAS BEEN HELD BY TH E HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF B.N. BHTTACHARGEE & ANR., 118 ITR 461 THAT APPEAL DOES NOT MEAN ONLY FILING OF MEMO OF APPEAL BU T ALSO PURSUING IT EFFECTIVELY. IN CASES WHERE THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT WANT TO PURSUE THE APPEAL, COURT/TRIBUNAL HAVE INHERENT POWER TO DISMI SS THE APPEAL FOR NON PROSECUTION AS HELD BY HONBLE HIGH COURT OF MUMBAI IN THE CASE OF M/S CHEMIPOL VS. UNION OF INDIA IN EXCISE APPEAL NO. 62 OF 2009. THEREFORE, 2 ITA NO. 1175 /HYD/2015 VEENA KAMISETTY, HYD. RESPECTFULLY 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 THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION. 3. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE IS AT LIBERTY TO SEEK RE CALL OF THIS ORDER BY WAY OF FILING AN M.A., SHOWING SUFFICIENT REASONS, WHIC H PREVENTED HIM FOR ABSENCE ON THE SAID DATE OF HEARING OF THIS APPEAL. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 8 TH MARCH, 2016. SD/- SD/- (P. MADHAVI DEVI) (S. RIFAUR RAHMAN) JUDICIAL MEMBER AC COUNTANT MEMBER HYDERABAD, DATED: 8 TH MARCH, 2016 KV COPY TO:- 1) SMT. K. VEENA, 10-192/3/71, JANAKI ENCLAVE, AMPRO ESTATES, SAROOR NAGAR, HYDERABAD 2) ITO, WARD 9(3), HYDERABAD 3) CIT(A)-VII, HYDERABAD 4) CIT-VII, HYDERABAD 5) THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, I.T.A.T., H YDERABAD.