M/s. Gaurav & Group, Ratlam V. The I..T.O., Ratlam

ITA 13/IND/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 134 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9674 (ITAT-INDORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 17-01-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 15-12-2010
• Assessment Year: 2002-2003
• Appeal Filed On: 07-01-2010
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: P K MITRA

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI JOGINDER SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI R.C. SHARMA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NOS.13 AND 14/IND/2010 A.YS. 2002-03 AND 2003-04 M/S GAURAV & GROUP RATLAM PAN AAGFG-0026J ..APPELLANT V/S. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2, RATLAM ..RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : NONE DEPARTMENT BY : SHRI P.K. MITRA, SR. DR ORDER PER JOGINDER SINGH, JM THESE APPEALS ARE BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST DIFFERENT ORDERS OF LD. CIT(A)-I, BHOPAL, DATED 4.11.2009 AND 5.11.2009 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2002-03 AND 2003-04 ON THE GROUNDS AS DETAILE D IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. DURING HEARING OF THIS APPEAL, NOBODY IS PRESENT FOR THE ASSESSEE WHEREAS P.K. MITRA, SR. DR IS PRESENT FOR THE REVENUE. THESE APPEALS WERE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ON 7.1.201 0 AS IS EVIDENT FROM ORDER SHEET ENTRY OF EVEN DATE. THESE APPEALS WERE WERE FIXED FOR 2 HEARING ON VARIOUS DATES AND WERE ADJOURNED DUE TO V ARIOUS REASONS. ON 2.11.2010 THESE APPEALS WERE ADJOURNED AT THE WRI TTEN REQUEST OF THE ASSESSEE FOR 15.12.2010. ON THAT DATE ALSO, AT THE WRITTEN REQUEST OF THE ASSESSEE, THESE WERE ADJOURNED TO 17.1.2011 I.E. TODAY AND LAST OPPORTUNITY WAS PROVIDED TO THE ASSESSEE. TODAY AL SO NEITHER ANYBODY WAS PRESENT FOR THE ASSESSEE, NOR ANY APPLICATION F OR ADJOURNMENT WAS MOVED. IT SEEMS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTE D IN PURSUING THESE APPEALS, THEREFORE, THESE APPEALS DESERVE TO BE DIS MISSED BECAUSE THESE CANNOT BE KEPT PENDING ADJUDICATION FOR INDEFINITE P ERIOD. MERE FILING OF APPEAL IS NOT ENOUGH RATHER IT REQUIRES EFFECTIVE P ROSECUTION ALSO. IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THESE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE LIABLE FOR DISMISSAL. OUR VIEW IS SUPP ORTED 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 APPEAL BUT EFFECTIVELY PURSUING IT. II) IN THE CASE OF ESTATE OF LATE TUKOJIRAO HOLKAR 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: 3 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 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. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED FOR NON-PROSECUTION. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT IN THE PRESENCE OF LEARNED SR. DR ON 17 TH JANUARY, 2011. (R.C. SHARMA) (JOGINDER SINGH) (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 17 TH JANUARY, 2011 COPY TO: APPELLANT/RESPONDENT/CIT/CIT(A)/DR/GUARD FILE DN/-