Satish (alias) Suryakant V. Zaveri, Aurangabad V. Asst.CIT, Circle-2, Aurangabad, Aurangabad

ITA 1288/PUN/2009

• Counselvise Citation: 128824514 RSA 2009
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 8 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-07-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 12-07-2011
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 09-11-2009
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ANN KAPTHUAMA

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH B, PUNE BEFORE SHRI SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIALMEMBE R AND SHRI G.S. PANNU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 1288/PN/2009 (BLOCK PERIOD ENDING 31.7.1995) SATISH (ALIAS) SURYAKANT V ZAVERI, .. APPELLANT KASARI BAZAR, AURANGABAD 431 001 VS. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, .. RESPONDENT CIR. 2, AURANGABAD APPELLANT BY: NONE RESPONDENT BY : ANN KAPTHUAMA ORDER PER G.S. PANNU, A.M .: THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 30.12.2008 PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, UNDER SECTION 1 58BC(C) READ WITH SECTION 254 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT THE A CT), PERTAINING TO THE BLOCK PERIOD ENDING 31.7.1995. 2. IN THIS CASE, NOTICE WAS ISSUED FIXING THE CASE FOR HEARING ON 13.05.2011. NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE AND THEREFORE, THE CASE WAS AGAIN FIXED FOR HEARING ON 12.7.2011 A ND THE NOTICE OF HEARING WAS DULY SENT. HOWEVER, ON 12.07.2001, NEIT HER ASSESSEE ATTENDED NOR THERE WAS ANY REQUEST FOR ADJOURNMENT. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED IN PROSECUTING HIS APPEAL. IT HAS BEEN HELD BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF B.N. BHTTACHARGEE & ANR., 118 ITR 461(SC) THAT APPEAL DOES NOT MEAN ONLY FILING OF MEMO OF APPEAL BUT ALSO PURSUING IT EFFECTIVELY. IN CASES WHERE THE ASSESSEE DOES N OT WANT TO PURSUE THE APPEAL, COURT/TRIBUNAL HAVE INHERENT POWER TO D ISMISS THE APPEAL 2 FOR NON- PROSECUTION, AS HELD BY HONBLE HIGH COURT OF MUMBAI IN THE CASE OF M/S CHEMIPOL VS. UNION OF INDIA IN EXCISE A PPEAL NO. 62 OF 2009. IN VIEW OF THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE HONBLE COURTS AND ALSO FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF MULTIPLAN (INDIA) LTD., 38 ITD 320 AND MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT IN L ATE TUKOJIRAO HOLKAR 223 ITR 480 (MP), WE DISMISS THE APPEAL OF T HE ASSESSEE FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION. 3. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DIS MISSED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 12 TH DAY OF JULY, 2011. SD/- SD/- (SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV) (G.S. P ANNU) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER PUNE:12 TH JULY, 2011 COPY TO:- 1) ASSESSEE 2) DEPARTMENT 3) THE CIT AURANGABAD 4) THE DR, B BENCH, I.T.A.T., PUNE. 5) GUARD FILE BY ORDER TRUE COPY ASST. REGISTRAR, I.T.A.T., PUNE B