Samir P.Jariwala, Surat V. Income Tax Officer,Ward-5(4), Surat

ITA 1303/AHD/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 118 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1971 (ITAT-SURAT)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 5 month(s) 16 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-10-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 13-05-2015
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

SAMIR P. JARIWALA VS. ITO, WARD-5(4), SURAT/ITA NO.1303/AHD/2015/SRT/AY:2008-09 PAGE 1 OF 3 , , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SURAT BENCH, SURAT . . , . . , BEFORE SHRI C.M.GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI O.P.MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER . . ./I.T.A NO.1303/AHD/2015/SRT /ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008-09 SAMIR P.JARIWALA, 4/4528, 1 ST FLOOR, DHAWAL, KUNVERSHING NI SHERI, BEGAMPURA, SURAT 395 002. [PAN: AAVPJ 2723 Q] VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(4), SURAT. NEW WARD-2(2)(4), SURAT. APPELLANT /RESPONDENT /ASSESSEE BY NONE /REVENUE BY SHRI VINOD KUMAR SR.DR / DATE OF HEARING: 2 9 . 10 .2018 /PRONOUNCEMENT ON 29 . 10 . 2018 /O R D E R PER O. P. MEENA, ACCOUTANT MEMBER: 1. THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-1, SURAT(IN SHORT THE CIT (A)) DATED 12.02.2015 PERTAINING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09, WHICH IN TURN HAS ARISEN FROM THE ORDER PASSED BY THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(4), SURAT(IN SHORT THE AO) DATED 30.12.2010 UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT). SAMIR P. JARIWALA VS. ITO, WARD-5(4), SURAT/ITA NO.1303/AHD/2015/SRT/AY:2008-09 PAGE 2 OF 3 2. DURING HEARING OF THIS APPEAL, NOBODY IS PRESENT FOR THE ASSESSEE, WHEREAS THE LD.SR DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE IS PRESENT FOR THE REVENUE. 3. THE HEARING OF APPEAL WAS FIXED ON 29.10.2018, BUT NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE NOR WAS ANY APPLICATION FOR ADJOURNMENT RECEIVED FROM THE ASSESSEE AT THE TIME OF THE HEARING. IT SEEMS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED TO PURSUE THE APPEAL, THEREFORE, IT CANNOT BE KEPT PENDING FOR ADJUDICATION FOR INDEFINITE PERIOD. IT WAS THE DUTY OF THE ASSESSEE TO MAKE NECESSARY ARRANGEMENTS FOR EFFECTIVE REPRESENTATION ON THE APPOINTED DATE. MERE FILING OF APPEAL IS NOT ENOUGH RATHER IT REQUIRES EFFECTIVE PERSUASION ALSO. IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE LIABLE FOR DISMISSAL IN THE LIGHT OF JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS BY HON`BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V. B. N. BHATTACHARJEE & OTHERS 118 ITR 461(SC), WHEREIN THEIR LORDSHIP HAVE HELD THAT THE APPEAL DOES NOT MEAN MERELY FILING OF THE APPEAL BUT EFFECTIVELY PURSUING IT. FURTHER, THE HON`BLE MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT 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 THEIR LORDSHIP OBSERVE AS THAT IF THE PARTY, AT WHOSE INSTANCE THE SAMIR P. JARIWALA VS. ITO, WARD-5(4), SURAT/ITA NO.1303/AHD/2015/SRT/AY:2008-09 PAGE 3 OF 3 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 . FURTHER, IN THE CASE OF CIT V. MULTIPLAN INDIA LTD., 38 ITD 320 (DEL), THERE WAS NO COMMUNICATION OR INFORMATION AS TO WHY THE REVENUE CHOSE TO REMAIN ABSENT ON DATE, HENCE, ON THE BASIS OF INHERENT POWERS, THE TRIBUNAL TREATED THE APPEAL; FILED BY THE REVENUE; AS UNADMITTED IN VIEW OF THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 19 OF THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RULES, 1963. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED FOR NON-PROSECUTION. 5. THE ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 29-10-2018. SD/- SD/- ( . . /C.M. GARG) ( . . / O.P.MEENA) /JUDICIAL MEMBER /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER / SURAT, DATED : 29 TH OCTOBER , 2018/ S.GANGADHARA RAO, SR.PS COPY OF ORDER SENT TO- ASSESSEE/AO/PR. CIT/ CIT (A)/ ITAT (DR)/GUARD FILE OF ITAT. BY ORDER / / TRUE COPY / / ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, SURAT