D. Srinivasa Reddy, Hyderabad V. ITO,Ward 6(4), Hyderabad

ITA 162/HYD/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 130 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6215 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 10-02-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 07-02-2017
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 03-02-2014
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: K J RAO

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES B : HYDERABAD BEFORE SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA.NO.162/HYD/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-2010 MR. D. SRINIVASA REDDY HYDERABAD. PAN AACPD9978J VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-6(4) HYDERABAD. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) FOR ASSESSEE : -NONE- FOR REVENUE : SHRI K.J. RAO DATE OF HEARING : 07.02.2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 10.02.2017 ORDER PER INTURI RAMA RAO, A.M. THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGA INST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A)-IV, HYDERABAD DATED 14.11.2013 FOR THE A.Y. 2009-2010. 2. ON PERUSAL OF RECORD, WE FIND THAT THIS CASE HAS BEEN ADJOURNED ON NUMBER OF OCCASIONS FROM 15/05/2014 TO 03/11/2016 DUE TO SOME OR THE OTHER REASON, MAINLY, THE ADJOUR NMENTS TOOK PLACE AT THE REQUEST OF THE ASSESSEE. WHEN THE APPE AL WAS FIXED ON THE LAST OCCASION I.E. ON 07/02/2016, FOR WHICH NOT ICE WAS ISSUED TO THE PARTIES BY WAY OF RPAD AND RECEIPT OF ACKNOWLED GMENT OF NOTICE IS ON RECORD, NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESS EE NOR THERE IS A REQUEST FOR ADJOURNMENT OF THE CASE. IN THESE CIRCU MSTANCES, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED IN PROSECUTING ITS APPEAL. IT HAS BEEN HELD BY THE HONBLE SUPR EME COURT IN THE CASE OF B.N. BHTTACHARGEE & ANR., 118 ITR 46 1 THAT APPEAL DOES NOT MEAN ONLY FILING OF MEMO OF APPEAL BU T ALSO PURSUING IT EFFECTIVELY. IN CASES WHERE THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT WANT TO PURSUE 2 ITA.NO.162/HYD/2014 SHRI D. SRINIVASA REDDY, HYDERABAD. THE APPEAL, COURT/TRIBUNAL HAVE INHERENT POWER TO D ISMISS THE APPEAL FOR NON PROSECUTION AS HELD BY HONBLE HIGH COURT O F MUMBAI IN THE CASE OF M/S CHEMIPOL VS. UNION OF INDIA IN EXCISE A PPEAL NO. 62 OF 2009. THEREFORE, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISIO N OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF MULTIPLAN (INDIA) LTD., (38 ITD 320) AN D MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT IN LATE TUKOJIRAO HOLKAR (223 ITR 480), WE DISMISS THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION. 3. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE IS AT LIBERTY TO SEEK RE CALL OF THIS ORDER BY WAY OF FILING AN M.A., SHOWING SUFFICIENT REASONS, WHICH PREVENTED IT FOR ABSENCE ON THE SAID DATE OF HEARING OF THIS APP EAL. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 10.02 .2017. SD/- SD/- (SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI) (INTURI RAMA RAO) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER HYDERABAD, DATED 10 TH FEBRUARY, 2017 VBP/- COPY TO 1. SHRI D. SRINIVASA REDDY, HYDERABAD. C/O. VENUGOPAL & CHENOY, CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS, 4-1 -889/16/2, TILAK ROAD, HYDERABAD 500 001. 2. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6(4), HYDERABAD. 3. CIT(A)-IV, HYDERABAD. 4. CIT-III, HYDERABAD. 5. D.R. ITAT B BENCH, HYDERABAD. 6. GUARD FILE