Rajendra Prasad, Hazaribagh V. ACIT, Hazaribagh

ITA 165/RAN/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 117 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9582 (ITAT-RANCHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 10 month(s) 6 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Transfer Pricing) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 05-04-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 30-05-2016
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: INDERJI T SINGH
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RANCHI BENCH, RANCHI BEFORE SHRI S.S.GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. A.L. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 165 / RAN / 201 6 ASSESSMENT YEAR :2012-13 RAJENDRA PRASAD BARHI CHOWK, G.T ROAD, BARHI HAZARIBAG-825405 [ PAN NO.ADFPP 7918 A ] V/S . ACIT, CIRCLE-2, RAVINDRA PATH, HAZARIBAG-825301 /APPELLANT .. / RESPONDENT /BY APPELLANT NONE /BY RESPONDENT SHRI INDERJIT SINGH, CIT-DR /DATE OF HEARING 08-01-2019 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 11-01-2019 / O R D E R PER BENCH:- THIS ASSESSEES APPEAL FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012- 13 ARISES AGAINST THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX HAZARIBAGS ORDER DA TED 18.03.2016 PASSED IN CASE NO.44/HZB/2014-15 INVOLVING PROCEEDINGS U/S 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961; IN SHORT THE ACT. 2. TODAY WHEN THE CASE WAS CALLED FOR HEARING NON E APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE NOR WAS ANY APPLICATION FOR AN ADJO URNMENT FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IN SPITE OF ISSUE OF NOTICE BY RPAD. IT AP PEARS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT SERIOUS IN PROSECUTING THIS APPEAL. HENCE THE A PPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS LIABLE TO BE DISMISSED FOR NON-PROSECUTION. FOR THIS VIEW, WE FIND SUPPORT FROM THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS:- ' 1. IN THE CASE OF CIT VS B.N.BHATTACHARJEE AND ANOT HER, REPORTED IN 118 ITR 461 [RELEVANT PAGES 477 & 478] WHEREIN THEIR LO RDSHIPS HAVE HELD THAT: 'THE APPEAL DOES NOT MEAN MERELY FILING OF THE APPE AL BUT EFFECTIVELY PURSUING IT.' ITA NO.165/RAN/2016 A.Y. 2012-14 RAJENDRA PRASAD VS. ACIT HZBI PAGE 2 3. IN THE CASE OF ESTATE OF LATE TUKOJIRAO HOLKAR VS CWT; 223 ITR 480 (MP) WHILE DISMISSING THE REFERENCE MADE AT THE INS TANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IN DEFAULT MADE FOLLOWING OBSERVATION IN THEIR ORDER: ' IF THE PARTY, AT WHOSE INSTANCE THE REFERENCE IS MA DE, 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.' 4. IN THE CASE OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX VS MULTIPLAN INDIA (P) LTD .38 ITD 320(DEL), THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE B EFORE THE TRIBUNAL, WHICH WAS FIXED FOR HEARING. BUT ON THE DATE OF HEA RING NOBODY REPRESENTED THE REVENUE/APPELLANT NOR ANY COMMUNICATION FOR ADJ OURNMENT WAS RECEIVED. THERE WAS NO COMMUNICATION OR INFORMATION AS TO WHY THE REVENUE CHOSE TO REMAIN ABSENT ON THAT DATE. THE TRIBUNAL ON THE BAS IS OF INHERENT POWERS, TREATED THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE AS UN ADMIT TED IN VIEW OF THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 19 OF THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RUL ES, 1963. 5. WE OBSERVE THAT IF THE ASSESSEE IS ADVISED TO F ILE APPROPRIATE APPLICATION FOR RECALLING THE ORDER ON JUST CAUSE I T WILL BE DECIDED IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DI SMISSED FOR NON- PROSECUTION. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT 11/ 01/2019 SD/- SD/- ( ) ('# ) (DR. A.L. SAINI) (S.S.GODARA) (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) (JUDICIAL MEMBER) RANCHI, *DKP $- 11/01 /2019 RANCHI / COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO:- 1. /APPELLANT-SHRI RAJENDRA PRASAD, S/O SRI LAXMI SAO, BARHI CHOWK, G.T. ROAD, BARHI, HAZARIBAG 2. /RESPONDENT-ACIT, CIRCLE 3. 0 3 / CONCERNED CIT RANCHI 4. 3- / CIT (A) RANCHI 5. 6 ##0, 0, / DR, ITAT, RANCHI 6. < / GUARD FILE. BY ORDER/ , SR.PS, ITAT, RANCHI