1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI JOGINDER SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI R.C. SHARMA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NOS.158, 159, 160, 161 & 163/IND/2011 A.Y.: 2006-07 1. M/S. RAJWANT SINGH & PARTY, NEEMUCH PAN AAAAR 49999 L 2. M/S. LAXMI MANGAL WAREHOUSE, NEEMUCH PAN AACFL 2242 G 3. M/S. MAHESHWARI WAREHOUSE, NEEMUCH PAN AALFM 7899 Q 4. M/S. LAXMINARAYAN SONS, NEEMUCH PAN AABFL 9122 B 5. M/S. KACHOLIYA ROADWAYS, NEEMUCH PAN AAAAK 5351 M ALL C/O N.PATIDAR & CO., CAS 1, BALAJI MARKET, NEEMUCH-458441 (MP) ..APPELLANTS V/S. ITO-NEEMUCH ..RESPONDENT ASSESSEES BY : NONE DEPARTMENT BY : SHRI ARUN DEWAN, SR. DR DATE OF HEARING : 27.12.2011 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 27.12.2011 2 ORDER PER BENCH THIS BUNCH OF FIVE APPEALS ARE BY THE DIFFERENT ASS ESSEES AGAINST THE DIFFERENT ORDERS OF LD. CIT(A)-UJJAIN, DATED 24. 6.2011, ON THE GROUNDS AS DETAILED IN THE GROUNDS OF RESPECTIVE AP PEAL. DURING HEARING OF THESE APPEALS, NOBODY IS PRESENT FOR THE ASSESSE ES WHEREAS SHRI ARUN DEWAN, LD. SR. DR IS PRESENT FOR THE REVENUE. 2. THESE APPEALS WERE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ON DIFF ERENT DATES AS IS EVIDENT FROM ORDER SHEET OF THE RESPECTIVE APPEAL. THESE APPEALS WERE FIXED FOR HEARING FOR TODAY I.E. 27.12.2011, FOR WH ICH, THE REGISTERED AD NOTICES WERE ISSUED ON THE ADDRESS (C/O N.PATIDAR & CO., CAS, 1, BALAJI MARKET, NEEMUCH) AS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEES AND THE SAME WERE DULY RECEIVED. TODAY, AT THE TIME OF THE HEARING, T HE ASSESSEES NEITHER PRESENTED THEMSELVES NOR MOVED ANY ADJOURNMENT PETIT ION. IT SEEMS THAT THE ASSESSEES ARE NOT INTERESTED TO PURSUE THE IR APPEALS, THEREFORE, THESE APPEALS CANNOT BE KEPT PENDING ADJUDICATION FO R INDEFINITE PERIOD. MERE FILING OF APPEAL IS NOT ENOUGH RATHER IT REQUI RES EFFECTIVE PROSECUTION ALSO. THE ASSESSEES HAVE ALSO NOT FILED ANY INFORMATION WITH THE REGISTRY OF THIS TRIBUNAL FOR THEIR NON-APPEARA NCE. IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEES ARE LIABLE FOR 3 DISMISSAL. OUR VIEW IS SUPPORTED BY THE FOLLOWING JU DICIAL 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. CW T, 223 ITR 480 (M.P.) WHILE DISMISSING THE REFERENCE MADE AT THE INSTANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IN DEFAULT MADE FOLLOWING OBSERVATION IN THEIR ORDER: 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 HEAR ING 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 COMMUNICA TION 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 BASI S OF INHERENT POWERS, TREATED THE APPEAL FILED BY THE RE VENUE AS UNADMITTED IN VIEW OF THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 19 OF THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RULES, 1963. 4 3. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE S ARE DISMISSED FOR NON-PROSECUTION. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT IN THE PRESENCE OF LEARNED SR.DR ON 27.12.2011. SD SD (R.C. SHARMA) (JOGINDER SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 27.12.2011 !VYAS! COPY TO: APPELLANT/RESPONDENT/CIT/CIT(A)/DR/GUARD F ILE