M/s. Gemplus India Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore V. DCIT, Bangalore

ITA 1365/BANG/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 80736 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 10 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-10-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 02-12-2010
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N.V. VASUDEVAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER IT( TP )A NO.1365/BANG/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006-07 GEMPLUS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, C/O. SHARMA GOEL & CO., 24/1, VENKETESHWARA, 2 ND FLOOR, RACE COURSE ROAD, BANGALORE 560 001. PAN: AABCG 0690E VS. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 11(3), BANGALORE. APPELLANT RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY : SHRI FARAHAT HUSSAIN QURESHI, CIT-II(DR) DATE OF HEARING : 30.10.2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 31.10.2014 O R D E R PER ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ASSAILS THE OR DER DATED 29.9.2010 PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 144C OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961. IT(TP)A NO.1365/BANG/2010 PAGE 2 OF 3 2. NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE AT THE T IME OF HEARING TODAY. WE FIND THAT NOTICE SERVED THROUGH RPAD AT THE ADDRESS GIVEN IN THE MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL HAS SINCE BEEN RETURNED BY THE POSTAL AUTHORITIES UNSERVED WITH THE REMARKS R / R/S ( RETURNED TO SENDER). THERE IS NO APPLICATION FROM THE ASSESSEE SEEKING A DJOURNMENT OR INFORMING THE CORRECT POSTAL ADDRESS EITHER. IN TH ESE CIRCUMSTANCES, IT IS PRESUMED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT SERIOUS IN PROSEC UTING THE APPEAL. 3. CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND KEEPING IN VIEW THE PR OVISIONS OF RULE 19(2) OF THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RULES AS WERE CONSIDERED IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. MULTIPLAN INDIA LTD., (38 ITD 320)(DEL), WE TREAT THIS APPEAL AS UNADMITTED. SIMILAR VIEW HAS BEEN TAKEN BY THE HONBLE MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF ESTATE OF LATE TUKOJIRAO HOLKAR VS. CWT (223 ITR 480) WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN HELD AS UNDER: 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 REFE RENCE, THE COURT IS NOT BOUND TO ANSWER THE REFERENCE. 4. THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. B. BHATTACHARJEE & ANOTHER (118 ITR 461 AT PAGE 477-478) HELD THAT THE APPEAL DOES NOT MEAN, MERE FILING OF THE M EMO OF APPEAL BUT EFFECTIVELY PURSUING THE SAME. IT(TP)A NO.1365/BANG/2010 PAGE 3 OF 3 5. FOLLOWING THE RATIO OF THE AFORESAID DECISIONS, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED IN LIMINE FOR NON-PROSECUTION. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE IS AT LIBERTY TO MOVE THE TRIBUNAL FOR APP ROPRIATE REMEDY, SHOWING REASONABLE AND SUFFICIENT CAUSE FOR SUCH NON-APPEAR ANCE ON THE APPOINTED DATE. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED . PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 31 ST DAY OF OCTOBER , 2014 . SD/- SD/- ( N.V. VASUDEVAN ) ( ABRAHAM P. GEORG E ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEM BER BANGALORE, DATED, THE 31 ST OCTOBER, 2014 . /D S/ COPY TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT, BANGALORE. 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR / SENIOR PRIVATE SECRETARY ITAT, BANGALORE.