Shri Suresh Patil, Indore V. The ITO 4(3), Indore

ITA 166/IND/2011

• Counselvise Citation: 16622714 RSA 2011
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-12-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 01-08-2011
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: KISHAVE SAXENA

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI JOGINDER SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI R.C. SHARMA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.166/IND/2011 A.Y.: 2007-08 SURESH PATIL, INDORE PAN ACJPP 3850 E ..APPELLANT V/S. ITO-4(3), INDORE ..RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : NONE DEPARTMENT BY : SHRI KISHAVE SAXENA, CIT/DR DATE OF HEARING : 28.12.2011 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 28.12.2011 ORDER PER BENCH THIS APPEAL IS BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A)-II, INDORE, DATED 1.6.2011, ON THE GROUNDS AS DETAILED IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. DURING HEARING OF THIS APPEAL, NOBODY IS PR ESENT FOR THE ASSESSEE WHEREAS SHRI KESHAVE SAXENA, LD. CIT/DR IS PRESENT FOR THE REVENUE. 2. THIS APPEAL WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ON 1.8.201 1 AS IS EVIDENT FROM ORDER SHEET ENTRY OF EVEN DATE. THE APPEAL WAS FIXED FOR HEARING FOR TODAY I.E. 28.12.2011, FOR WHICH, REGISTERED AD NOTICE WAS ISSUED TO 2 THE ASSESSEE, WHICH WAS DULY SERVED UPON THE ASSESS EE AS IS EVIDENT FROM THE POSTAL ACKNOWLEDGMENT AVAILABLE ON RECORD. TODAY, AT THE TIME OF THE HEARING, THE ASSESSEE NEITHER PRESENTED HIMS ELF NOR MOVED ANY ADJOURNMENT PETITION. IT SEEMS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED TO PURSUE HIS 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. 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 3 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. 3. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED FOR NON-PROSECUTION. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT IN THE PRESENCE OF LEARNED CIT/DR ON 28.12.2011. SD SD (JOGINDER SINGH) (R.C. SHARMA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 28.12.2011 !VYS! COPY TO: APPELLANT/RESPONDENT/CIT/CIT(A)/DR/GUARD F ILE