Arun Kr. Singh, V. I.T.O.,

ITA 198/RAN/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2193 (ITAT-RANCHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 9 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-02-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 28-05-2014
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SANDIP RAJ

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL: RANCHI BENCH SMC, RANCHI BEFORE SH. SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 198/RAN/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2005-06 SH. ARUN KUMAR SINGH, F-3, URMILA ROY COMPLEX, CIRCULAR ROAD, LALPUR, RANCHI. (PAN:AYFPS6639A) VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1), RANCHI (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY NONE RESPONDENT BY SH. SANDIP RAJ, ADDL. CIT DATE OF HEARING 29.02.2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 29.02.2016 O R D E R THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST TH E ORDER OF LD. CIT(A), DATED 27.01.2014 WHICH PERTAINS TO THE ASSESSMENT Y EAR 2005-06. 2. THIS APPEAL WAS LAST FIXED FOR HEARING ON 2.11.2 015. WHEN THE MATTER WAS CALLED ON FOR HEARING, THERE WAS NO RESPONSE FR OM THE SIDE OF THE ASSESSEE. HENCE, THE HEARING WAS ADJOURNED TO NEXT BENCH AND NOTICE OF HEARING WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE BY RPAD AT THE ADDRESS FURNI SHED BY THE ASSESSEE IN COLUMN 10 OF THE MEMO OF APPEAL IN FORM NO. 36, FIX ING THE HEARING ON 29.2.2016. ON 29.2.2016 ALSO, WHEN THE MATTER WAS C ALLED ON FOR HEARING, NO ONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE, NOR ANY APP LICATION FOR ADJOURNMENT WAS 2 ITA NO. 198/RAN/2014, AY: 2005-06 FILED. FROM THE ABOVE, IT IS INFERRED THAT THE ASSE SSEE IS NOT INTERESTED IN PURSUING ITS CASE. 3. CONSIDERING THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND KEEPING IN VIEW THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 19(2) OF THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RUL ES AS WERE CONSIDERED IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. MULTIPLAN INDIA LTD., (38 ITD 320)( DEL), THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IS LIABLE TO BE DISMISSED FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION. 4. THE HON'BLE MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT IN THE CA SE OF ESTATE OF LATE TUKOJIRAO HOLKAR VS. CWT (223 ITR 480) HAS HELD AS UNDER: '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 THE REFERENCE, THE COURT IS NOT BOUND TO ANSWER THE REF ERENCE. ' 5. SIMILARLY, HON'BLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF NEW DIWAN OIL MILLS VS. CIT (2008) 296 ITR 495) RETURNE D THE REFERENCE UNANSWERED SINCE THE ASSESSEE REMAINED ABSENT AND T HERE WAS NOT ANY ASSISTANCE FROM THE ASSESSEE. 6. THEIR LORDSHIPS OF HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. B. BHATTACHARGEE & ANOTHER (118 ITR 461 AT PAGE 477-47 8) HELD THAT THE APPEAL DOES NOT MEAN, MERE FILING OF THE MEMO OF APPEAL BU T EFFECTIVELY PURSUING THE SAME. 7. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE VIEW TAKEN IN THE CA SES CITED SUPRA, I DISMISS THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE FOR NON-PROSECUTION. BEF ORE PARTING, I ADD THAT IN CASE THE ASSESSEE IS SERIOUS IN PURSUING THE APPEAL FILE D, THEN HE WOULD BE AT LIBERTY TO PRAY FOR A RECALL OF THIS ORDER BY MOVING AN APPROP RIATE PETITION, AS PER LAW. 8. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. 3 ITA NO. 198/RAN/2014, AY: 2005-06 THE DECISION IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 29 TH FEBRUARY, 2016. SD/- (SHAMIM YAHYA) ACC OUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 29 TH FEBRUARY, 2016. RAJESH, SR.PS/- COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT CONCERNED 4. THE CIT(A) - 5. THE DR, ITAT, RANCHI 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER SR. P.S., ITAT, RANCHI