Sushanta Kumar Rath, Keonjhar V. ITO, Keonjhar Ward, Keonjhar

ITA 221/CTK/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5299 (ITAT-CUTTACK)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 6 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-12-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 03-06-2016
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: D K PRADHAN

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. 221 / CTK /20 1 6 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 20 1 1 - 20 1 2 ) SRI SUSANTA KUMAR RAT H, AT - JURUDI, PO:JAJANG, VIA - JODA, DIST:KEONJHAR VS. ITO, KEONJHAR WARD, KEONJHAR ./ ./ PAN/GIR NO. : A GAPR 5059 C ( / APPELLANT ) .. ( / RESPONDENT ) /AS SESSEE BY : NONE /REVE NUE BY : SHRI D.K.PRADHAN, DR / DATE OF HEARING : 26 / 1 2 /201 7 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 27 / 1 2 /201 7 / O R D E R PER SHRI PAV AN KUMAR GADALE, JM : THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED AN APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A), CUT TACK, DATED 25.03.2016 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011 - 2012. 2. THIS APPEAL CAME FOR HEARING TODAY I.E. ON 26.12.2017. THE NOTICE WAS SENT TO THE ASSESSEE FOR HEARING BY SPEED POST ON 24.11.2017 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 IS LIABLE TO BE DISMISSED FOR NON PROSECUTION. FOR THIS VIEW, WE FIND SUPPORT FROM THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS : - 1. IN THE CASE OF CIT VS B.N.BHATTACH A RGEE 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 EFFECTIVE LY PURSUING IT. ITA NO. 2 21 /CTK/201 6 2 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 OBSERVATION IN THEIR ORDER : IF THE PARTY, AT WHOSE INSTANCE THE REF ERENCE 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 REFERENCE. 3. IN THE CASE OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX VS MULTIPLA N 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 COMMUN ICATION 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 VIEW OF THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 19 OF THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RULES, 196 3. 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 PRAYING FOR RECALLING THIS ORDER AND EXPLAINING REASONS FOR NON - COMPLIA NCE ETC. THEN THIS ORDER MAY BE RECALLED. 5. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED FOR NON - PROSECUTION. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 27 /12/2017. SD/ - ( N. S. SAINI ) SD/ - ( PA V AN KUMAR GADALE ) / AC COUNTANT MEMBER / JUDICIAL MEMBER CUTTACK ; DATED 27 / 1 2 /201 7 . . / PKM , SENIOR PRIVATE SECRETARY / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : / BY ORDER, ( SENIOR PRIVATE SECRETARY ) , / ITAT, CUTTACK 1. / THE APPELLANT - 2. / THE R ESPONDENT - 3. ( ) / THE CIT(A), 4. / CIT 5. , , / DR, ITAT, CUTTACK 6. / GUARD FILE. //TRUE COPY//