M/s. Laxmi Enterprises, Dhar V. The D.C.I.T., Indore

ITA 213/IND/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 134 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9639 (ITAT-INDORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 9 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 02-02-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 19-04-2010
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PRADEEP KUMAR MITRA

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 NOS.213 & 214/IND/2010 A.YS. 2005-06 & 2006-07 M/S. LAXMI ENTERPRISES, ANANDGANJ MANDI, KUKSHI, DHAR PAN AABFL 8006 G APPELLANT VS DCIT-1(1), INDORE & ADDL. CIT, RANGE-1., INDORE RESPONDENTS APPELLANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY : SH. PRADEEP KUMAR MITRA, SR. DR O R D E R PER JOGINDER SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER THESE APPEALS ARE BY THE ASSESSEES AGAINST THE DIFF ERENT ORDERS OF THE LEARNED CIT(A)-I, INDORE, DATED 8.1.2010 & 5.1. 2010, RESPECTIVELY. DURING HEARING OF THESE APPEALS, NOBODY IS PRESENT FOR THE ASSESSEE WHEREAS SHRI PRADEEP KUMAR MITRA, LEARNED SR. DR IS PRESENT FOR THE REVENUE. 2 THESE APPEALS WERE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ON 19.4.2 010 AS IS EVIDENT FROM ORDER SHEET ENTRY OF EVEN DATE. THE AP PEALS WERE FIXED FOR HEARING FOR 20.10.2010 AND SAME WERE ADJOURNED TO 2 1.12.2010. ON 21.12.2010, THESE WERE AGAIN ADJOURNED TO 2.2.2011 FOR WHICH REGISTERED NOTICE FOR HEARING WAS SENT TO THE ASSESSEE FOR TOD AY. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE NEITHER PRESENTED ITSELF NOR MOVED ANY ADJ OURNMENT PETITION. IT SEEMS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED TO PUR SUE ITS APPEALS, THEREFORE, THESE CANNOT BE KEPT PENDING ADJUDICATIO N FOR INDEFINITE PERIOD. MERE FILING OF APPEAL IS NOT ENOUGH RATHER IT REQUIRES EFFECTIVE PROSECUTION ALSO. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO NOT FILED A NY INFORMATION WITH THE REGISTRY FOR ITS NON-APPEARANCE. IN VIEW OF THE SE FACTS, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE LIABLE FO R DISMISSAL. OUR VIEW IS SUPPORTED BY THE FOLLOWING JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMEN TS: 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. CWT, 223 ITR 480 (M.P.) WHILE DISMISSING THE REFERENCE MADE AT THE INSTANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IN DEFAULT MADE FOLLOWING OBSERVATION IN THEIR ORDER: 3 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 HEARING OF THE R EFERENCE, 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 COMMUNIC ATION OR INFORMATION AS TO WHY THE REVENUE CHOSE TO REMAI N ABSENT ON DATE. THE TRIBUNAL ON THE BASIS OF INHERENT POW ERS, TREATED THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE AS UNADMITT ED IN VIEW OF THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 19 OF THE APPELLATE TRIBU NAL RULES, 1963. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE A RE DISMISSED FOR NON-PROSECUTION. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT IN THE PRESENCE OF LEARNED SR. DR AT THE CONCLUSION OF HEARING ON 2 ND FEBRUARY, 2011. (R.C.SHARMA) (JOGINDER SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 2.2.2011 COPY TO: APPELLANT, RESPONDENT, CIT, CIT(A), DR, G UARD FILE !VYAS!