M/s Kirti Construction, Bhopal V. The ACIT 1(1), Bhopal

ITA 159/IND/2013

• Counselvise Citation: 15922714 RSA 2013
• Duration Of Justice: 9 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 01-01-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 28-03-2013
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R A VERMA

Judgement Text

1 INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI JOGINDER SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI R.C. SHARMA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.159/IND/2013 A.Y. 2007-08 M/S. KRITI CONSTRUCTION, BHOPAL PAN AAEFC 9503 A ..APPELLANT V/S. ACIT-1(1), BHOPAL ..RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY NONE REVENUE BY SHRI R.A. VERMA, SR. DR DATE OF HEARING 1.1.2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 1.1.2014 ORDER PER JOGINDER SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER THIS APPEAL IS BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER DA TED 10.1.2013 PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A)-I, BHOPAL, ON THE GROUNDS AS DETAILED IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. DURING HEARING OF THIS APPEAL, N OBODY IS PRESENT FOR THE ASSESSEE WHEREAS SHRI R.A. VERMA, LD. SR. DR IS PRE SENT FOR THE REVENUE. 2. THIS APPEAL WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ON 28.3.20 13 AS IS EVIDENT FROM ORDER SHEET ENTRY OF EVEN DATE. NOTICE FOR HEA RING FOR 1.1.2014, SENT 2 TO THE ASSESSEE AT THE ADDRESS FURNISHED BY THE ASS ESSEE, WAS RETURNED BY THE POSTAL AUTHORITY WITH THE REMARK LEFT. TODAY I.E. 1.1.2014, AT THE TIME OF THE HEARING, THE ASSESSEE NEITHER PRESENTED ITSE LF NOR MOVED ANY ADJOURNMENT PETITION. IT SEEMS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED TO PURSUE ITS APPEAL, THEREFORE, IT CANNOT BE KEPT PEN DING ADJUDICATION FOR INDEFINITE PERIOD. IT WAS THE DUTY OF THE ASSESSEE TO MAKE NECESSARY ARRANGEMENTS FOR EFFECTIVE REPRESENTATION ON THE AP POINTED DATE. MERE FILING OF APPEAL IS NOT ENOUGH RATHER IT REQUIRES E FFECTIVE PROSECUTION ALSO. IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS LIABLE FOR DISMISSAL. OUR VIEW IS SUPPORTED BY T HE 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 APPE AL BUT EFFECTIVELY PURSUING IT. II) IN THE CASE OF ESTATE OF LATE TUKOJIRAO HOLKAR V. C WT, 223 ITR 480 (M.P.) WHILE DISMISSING THE REFERENCE MADE AT T HE INSTANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IN DEFAULT MADE FOLLOWING OBSERVATI ON IN THEIR ORDER: 3 IF THE PARTY, AT WHOSE INSTANCE THE REFERENCE IS M ADE, 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. III) IN THE CASE OF CIT V. MULTIPLAN INDIA LTD., 38 ITD 320 (DEL), THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL, WH ICH WAS FIXED FOR HEARING. BUT ON THE DATE OF HEARING, NOB ODY REPRESENTED THE REVENUE/APPELLANT NOR ANY COMMUNICA TION FOR ADJOURNMENT WAS RECEIVED. THERE WAS NO COMMUNICATI ON OR INFORMATION AS TO WHY THE REVENUE CHOSE TO REMAIN A BSENT ON DATE. THE TRIBUNAL ON THE BASIS OF INHERENT POWERS , TREATED THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE AS UNADMITTED IN VIEW O F THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 19 OF THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RUL ES, 1963. 3. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED FOR NON-PROSECUTION. ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT IN THE PRES ENCE OF LEARNED SENIOR DR ON 1.1.2014. SD/- SD/- (R.C. SHARMA) (JOGINDER SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 1.1.2014 COPY TO: APPELLANT/RESPONDENT/CIT/CIT(A)/DR/GUARD F ILE !VYAS!