Shri Hemant Kumar Jain, Indore V. The ITO,

ITA 194/IND/2009

• Counselvise Citation: [2010] 136 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2927 (ITAT-INDORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 21 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 06-05-2010
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 06-05-2010
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 15-04-2009
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: V K KARAN

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI JOGINDER SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI V.K. GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.194/IND/2009 AY: 2005-06 HEMANT KUMAR JAIN, 27/1, RACE COURSE ROAD, INDORE (PAN ABJPJ 7744 C) ..APPELLANT V/S. ITO-4(2), INDORE ..RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : NONE DEPARTMENT BY : SHRI V.K. KARAN, SR. DR ORDER PER BENCH THIS APPEAL IS BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A)- II, INDORE, DATED 13.1.2009 FOR THE AY 2005-06 ON T HE GROUNDS AS DETAILED IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. DURING HEARING O F THIS APPEAL, NOBODY IS PRESENT FOR THE ASSESSEE WHEREAS SHRI V.K . KARAN, LD. SR. DR IS PRESENT FOR THE REVENUE. THIS APPEAL WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ON 15.4.2009 AS IS EVIDENT FROM ORDER SHEET ENTRY OF EVEN DATE. THE AP PEAL WAS FIXED FOR HEARING FOR TODAY I.E. 6.5.2010 FOR WHICH REGIS TERED NOTICE OF 2 HEARING WAS SENT TO THE ASSESSEE ON THE ADDRESS AS PROVIDED IN FORM NO.36. THE NOTICE WAS DULY SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE AS IS EVIDENT FROM THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE A SSESSEE NEITHER PRESENTED ITSELF NOR MOVED ANY ADJOURNMENT PETITION . IT SEEMS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED TO PURSUE ITS APPEAL , THEREFORE, IT CANNOT BE KEPT PENDING ADJUDICATION FOR INDEFINITE PERIOD. MERE FILING OF APPEAL IS NOT ENOUGH RATHER IT REQUIRES EFFECTIV E PROSECUTION ALSO. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO NOT FILED ANY INFORMATION WIT H THE REGISTRY FOR HIS NON-APPEARANCE. IN VIEW OF THIS FACT, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS LIABLE FOR DISMISSAL. OUR VIEW IS SUPPORTED 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 TUKOJIRAO HOLKAR V. C WT, 223 ITR 480 (M.P.) WHILE DISMISSING THE REFERENCE MADE AT THE INSTANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IN DEFAULT MADE FOLLOW ING 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 T RIBUNAL, WHICH WAS FIXED FOR HEARING. BUT ON THE DATE OF HEA RING, NOBODY REPRESENTED THE REVENUE/APPELLANT NOR ANY COMMUNICATION FOR ADJOURNMENT WAS RECEIVED. THERE W AS NO COMMUNICATION OR INFORMATION AS TO WHY THE REVEN UE CHOSE TO REMAIN ABSENT ON DATE. THE TRIBUNAL ON TH E BASIS OF INHERENT POWERS, TREATED THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE AS UNADMITTED IN VIEW OF THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 19 OF THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RULES, 1963. 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 SR. DR ON 6.5.2010. (V.K. GUPTA) (JOGINDER SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 6.5.2010 ! VYAS ! COPY TO: APPELLANT/RESPONDENT/CIT/CIT(A)/DR/GUARD F ILE