M. Chandra Sekhar Goud, Hyderabad V. Income Tax Officer, Ward-7(2), Hyderabad

ITA 1639/Hyd/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 115 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4470 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 5 month(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-03-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB-B
• Next Hearing Date: 11-03-2019
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 26-09-2017
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: D J ANAND
• Section: 271(1)(c); 147; 144

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH B-SMC, HYDERABAD BEFORE SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NOS. 1639 & 1640/HYD/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 SHRI M. CHANDRA SEKHAR GOUD, HYDERABAD. PAN AHFPG5179A VS. ITO, WARD 7(2), HYDERABAD. (APPLICANT) (RES PONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : NONE REVENUE BY : SHRI D.J. ANAND, DR DATE OF HEARING : 11-03-2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 22-03-2019 ORDER PER P. MADHAVI DEVI, J.M.: BOTH ARE ASSESSEES APPEALS FOR THE A.Y 2007-08 AGAINST THE ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S 144 R.W.S 147 AND THE PENALTY ORDER U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961OF THE ACT, 1961 RESPECTIVELY. 2. THE REGISTRY HAD POINTED OUT CERTAIN DEFECTS AND THIS CASE IS COMING UP FOR HEARING FROM 05.03.2018 ONWAR DS. THE LD.ASSESSEES COUNSEL HAD TAKEN TIME TO RECTIFY THE DEFECTS ON 04.07.2018. THEREAFTER, THE CASE IS ADJO URNED FROM TIME TO TIME AT REQUEST OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. ON 07.03.2019, NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE AND SHRI K.C. DEVDAS, CA UNDERTOOK TO INFO RM THE COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ABOUT THE HEARING DATE BEI NG 2 ITA.NO. 1639 & 1640/HYD/2017 SHRI M. CHANDRA SEKHAR GOUD, HYD. 11.03.20019 I.E TODAY. WHEN THE CASE CAME UP FOR H EARING, NONE APPEARED FOR THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, PRESUMI NG THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED TO PURSUE THE APPEAL , RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF B.N. BHTTACHARGEE & ANR., 118 ITR 461 THAT APPEAL DOES NOT MEAN ONLY FILING OF MEMO OF APPEAL BUT ALSO PURSUING IT EFFECTIVELY, THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF MUMBAI IN THE CASE OF M/S CHEMIPOL VS. UNION OF INDIA IN EXCISE A PPEAL NO. 62 OF 2009 HELD THAT, IN CASES WHERE THE ASSESSEE D OES NOT WANT TO PURSUE THE APPEAL, COURTS/TRIBUNALS HAVE INHEREN T POWER TO DISMISS THE APPEAL FOR NON-PROSECUTION. THEREFORE, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING ALSO THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF MULTIPLAN (INDIA) LTD., (38 ITD 320) AND MADHYA PRA DESH HIGH COURT IN LATE TUKOJIRAO HOLKAR (223 ITR 480), WE DI SMISS THESE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION WIT H LIBERTY TO SEEK RECALL OF THIS ORDER, IF IT SO DESIRES, SHOWIN G SUFFICIENT CAUSE FOR NON-APPEARANCE ON 11.03.2019. 3. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEALS FILED BY THE AS SESSEE ARE REJECTED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 22 ND MARCH, 2019. SD/- (P. MADHAVI DEVI) JUDICIAL MEMBER HYDERABAD, DATED: 22 ND MARCH, 2019 KRK 3 ITA.NO. 1639 & 1640/HYD/2017 SHRI M. CHANDRA SEKHAR GOUD, HYD. 1) SHRI M. CHANDRA SEKHAR GOUD, D.NO. 13-1-80, R.K. PET, MANGALHATT, HYDERABAD. 2) ITO, WARD 7(2), HYDERABAD. 3) CIT(A)-3, HYDERABAD. 4) PR.CIT-3, HYDERABAD. 5) THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, I.T.A.T., H YDERABAD. 6) GUARD FILE.