M/s Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Ujjain V. The ITO Wd- 1(2), Ujjain

ITA 14/IND/2011

• Counselvise Citation: 1422714 RSA 2011
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 21 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-12-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 25-10-2011
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 22-03-2011
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ARUN DEWAN

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 NO.14/IND/2011 A.Y.: 2007-08 KRISHI UPAJ MANDI SAMITI, NAGDA DIST. UJJAIN ..APPELLANT V/S. ITO, WARD-1(2), UJJAIN ..RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : NONE DEPARTMENT BY : SHRI ARUN DEWAN, SR. DR DATE OF HEARING : 13.12.2011 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 13.12.2011 ORDER PER R.C. SHARMA THIS APPEAL IS BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A)-UJJAIN, DATED 26.11.2010 ON THE GROUNDS AS DETAILED IN THE GROUND S OF APPEALS. DURING HEARING OF THIS APPEAL, NOBODY IS PRESENT FOR THE ASSESSEE WHE REAS SHRI ARUN DEWAN, LD. SR. DR IS PRESENT FOR THE REVENUE. 2. THIS APPEAL WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ON 22.3.20 11 AS IS EVIDENT FROM ORDER SHEET ENTRY OF EVEN DATE. THERE IS DELAY OF 39 DAYS IN FILING THE APPEAL. THIS APPEAL WAS FIXED FOR HEARING FOR TODAY I.E. 13.12.2011, FO R WHICH, RPAD NOTICE WAS SENT BY THE REGISTRY AT THE ADDRESS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESS EE IN FORM NO.36. TODAY, THE ASSESSEE NEITHER PRESENTED ITSELF NOR MOVED ANY ADJ OURNMENT PETITION. IT SEEMS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED TO PURSUE ITS APPEAL , THEREFORE, IT CANNOT BE KEPT PENDING ADJUDICATION FOR INDEFINITE PERIOD. MERE FI LING OF APPEAL IS NOT ENOUGH RATHER IT 2 REQUIRES EFFECTIVE PROSECUTION ALSO. THE ASSESSEE H AS ALSO NOT FILED ANY INFORMATION WITH THE REGISTRY FOR ITS NON-APPEARANCE. IN VIEW O F THESE FACTS, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS LIABLE FOR DISMI SSAL. OUR VIEW IS SUPPORTED BY THE FOLLOWING JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS: I) IN THE CASE OF CIT V. B.N. BHATTACHARGEE AND ANO THER, 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 APPE AL 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 I NSTANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IN DEFAULT MADE FOLLOWING OBSERVATION IN T HEIR ORDER: IF THE PARTY, AT WHOSE INSTANCE THE REFERENCE IS M ADE, FAILS TO APPEAR AT THE HEARING, OR FAILS IN TAKING STEPS FOR PREPARATI ON 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 INHER ENT POWERS, TREATED THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE AS UNADMITTED IN VI EW OF THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 19 OF THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RULES, 1963. 3. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED FOR NON-PROSECUTION. SD/- SD/- (JOGINDER SINGH) (R.C. SHARMA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 13.12.2011 COPY TO: APPELLANT/RESPONDENT/CIT/CIT(A)/DR/GUARD F ILE