Yashwant Singh Thakur, Kalahandi V. DCIT, Circle-1(1), Bhubaneswar

ITA 213/CTK/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5377 (ITAT-CUTTACK)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 4 month(s) 16 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-10-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 26-05-2016
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: D K PRADHAN
• Section: 144

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CUTTACK BENCH CUTTACK BEFORE SHRI N.S.SAINI, AM & SHRI PAV AN KUMAR GADALE, JM ./ ITA NO. 213 / CTK /20 1 6 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 20 11 - 20 12 ) YASHWANT SINGH THAKUR , IRRIGATION COLONY, BHAWANIPATNA, KALAHANDI (ODISHA) - 766001 VS. DCIT, CIRCLE - 1(1), BHUBANESWAR ./ ./ PAN/GIR NO. : A AUPT 3006 D ( / APPELLANT ) .. ( / RESPONDENT ) /AS SESSEE BY : NONE /REVENUE BY : SHRI D.K.PRADHAN , CITDR / DATE OF HEARING : 12 / 10 /201 7 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 12 / 10 /201 7 / O R D E R PER SHRI PAV AN KUMAR GADALE, JM : TH E ASSESSEE HAS FILED AN APPEAL AGAINST THE OR DER OF CIT(A) - 1 , BHUBANESWAR , PASSED IN ITA PPEAL NO. 0407 /14 - 15, DATED 24.02.2016 , U/S. 14 4 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. 2. THIS APPEAL CAME FOR HEARING TODAY I.E. ON 12.10 .2017. THE NOTICE WAS SENT TO THE ASSESSEE FOR HEARING BY REGISTERED POST WITH AD ON 15.09. 2 017 TO THE ADDRESS GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE IN COLUMN NO.10 OF FORM NO.36. HOWEVER NO ONE WAS PRESENT ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE DATE OF HEARING. IT MEANS THAT ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED TO PROSECUTE THE APPEAL. HENCE, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE I S LIABLE TO BE DISMISSED FOR NON PROSECUTION. FOR THIS VIEW, WE FIND SUPPORT FROM THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS : - ITA NO. 213 /2016 2 1. IN THE CASE OF CIT VS B.N.BHATTACHRGEE AND ANOTHER, REPORTED IN 118 ITR 461 [RELEVANT PAGES 477 & 478] WHEREIN THEIR LORDSHIPS HAVE HELD THAT: THE APPEAL DOES NOT MEAN MERELY FILING OF THE APPEAL BUT EFFECTIVELY PURSUING IT. 2. IN THE CASE OF ESTATE OF LATE TUKOJIRAO HOLKAR VS CWT; 223 ITR 480 (MP) WHILE DISMISSING THE REFERENCE MADE AT THE INSTANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IN DEFAULT MADE FOLLOWING OBS ERVATION IN THEIR ORDER : IF THE PARTY, AT WHOSE INSTANCE THE REFERENCE IS MADE, FAILS TO APPEAR AT THE HEARING, OR FAILS IN TAKING STEPS FOR PREPARATION OF THE PAPER BOOKS SO AS TO ENABLE HEARING OF THE REFERENCE, THE COURT IS NOT BOUND TO ANSWER THE RE FERENCE. 3. IN THE CASE OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX VS MULTIPLAN INDIA (P) 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 COMMUNICATION FOR ADJOURNMENT WAS RECEIVED. THERE WAS NO COMMUNICATION OR INFORMATION AS TO WHY THE REVENUE CHOSE TO REMAIN ABSENT ON THAT DATE. THE TRIBUNAL ON THE BASIS OF INHERENT POWERS, TREATED THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE AS UN ADMITTED IN VIE W OF THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 19 OF THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RULES, 1963. 3. CONSIDERING THE ABOVE JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS, WE DISMISS THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE FOR NON - PROSECUTION. 4. THE ASSESSEE, IF SO DESIRED, SHALL BE FREE TO MOVE THIS TRIBUNAL PRAY ING FOR RECALLING THIS ORDER AND EXPLAINING REASONS FOR NON - COMPLIANCE ETC. THEN THIS ORDER MAY BE RECALLED. 5 . IN THE RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED FOR NON - PROSECUTION. O RDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 12 / 10 / 201 7 . SD/ - ( N. S. SAINI ) SD/ - ( PA V AN KUMAR GADALE ) / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER / JUDICIAL MEMBER CUTTACK ; DATED 12 / 10 /201 7 . . / PKM , SENIOR PRIVATE SECRETARY / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT - 2. / THE RESPONDENT - 3. ( ) / THE CIT(A), 4. / CIT 5. , , / DR, ITAT, CUTTACK 6. / GUARD FILE. ITA NO. 213 /2016 3 / BY ORDER, ( SENIOR PRIVATE SECRETARY ) , / ITAT, CUTTACK //TRUE COPY//