Shri Mukesh Maheshwari, Ujjain V. THE ITO Ward 1(1), Ujjain

ITA 19/IND/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 126 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2303 (ITAT-INDORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 1 month(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-02-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 19-01-2017
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 28

Judgement Text

MUKESH JHAVERI ITA 19/IND/2017 1 , , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCHE, INDORE BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 19/IND/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2013-14 MUKESH MAHESHWARI UJJAIN / VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(1) UJJAIN (APPELLANT) (REVENUE ) P.A. NO.AIYPM 4787G APPELLANT BY NONE RESPONDENT BY SHRI RAJIV JAIN DATE OF HEARING: 26.2.2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 28.02.2018 / O R D E R PER SHRI KUL BHARAT, JM THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE OR DER OF LD. CIT(A), UJJAIN, DATED 21.11.2016. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING NONE APPEARED AT ASSESSEES BEHALF. 2. WE FIND THAT THE APPEAL WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSE E ON 19.1.2017. IT IS EVIDENT FROM RECORD THAT THE PRESENT APPEAL WAS FIXED FOR HEARING MUKESH JHAVERI ITA 19/IND/2017 2 ON 26.2.2018 BUT THERE WAS NO REPRESENTATION ON BEH ALF OF THE ASSESSEE DESPITE SERVICE OF NOTICE NOTICE. THIS CON DUCT OF THE ASSESSEE SHOWS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED IN PURSUING HIS APPEAL, THEREFORE, IT CANNOT BE KEPT PENDING FOR AD JUDICATION 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 REQU IRES EFFECTIVE PERSUASION ALSO. 3. IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS LIABLE FOR DISMISSAL. OUR VIEW IS SUPPO RTED BY THE 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 TUKOJIRAOHOLKAR 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 MUKESH JHAVERI ITA 19/IND/2017 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. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED FOR NON-PROSECUTION. ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 28 .2.2018. S D / - (KUL BHARAT) SD/ - (MANISH BORAD) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER INDORE; DATED : 28/02/2018 DN/- COPY TO: ASSESSEE/AO/PR. CIT/ CIT (A)/ITAT (DR)/GUA RD FILE. BY ORDER PRIVATE SECRETARY/DDO, INDORE MUKESH JHAVERI ITA 19/IND/2017 4