1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI JOGINDER SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI R.C. SHARMA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.228/IND/2012 A.Y. 2007-08 MUKESH SANGLA, INDORE PAN ANAPS 5597 F ..APPELLANT V/S. CIT-I, INDORE ..RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY NONE REVENUE BY SMT. MRIDULA BAJPAI, CIT/DR DATE OF HEARING 29.1.2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 29.1.2013 ORDER PER JOGINDER SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER THIS APPEAL IS BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER DA TED 27.3.2012 PASSED BY THE LD. CIT-I, INDORE, ON THE G ROUNDS AS DETAILED IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. DURING HEARING O F THIS APPEAL, 2 NOBODY IS PRESENT FOR THE ASSESSEE WHEREAS SMT. MRI DULA BAJPAI, LD. CIT/DR IS PRESENT FOR THE REVENUE. 2. THIS APPEAL WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ON 24.4.20 12 AS IS EVIDENT FROM ORDER SHEET ENTRY OF EVEN DATE. THE AP PEAL WAS FIXED FOR HEARING FOR 2.7.2012 AND AT THE WRITTEN R EQUEST ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE, THE APPEAL WAS ADJOURNED TO 9.7.2012. ON 9.7.2012, AT THE WRITTEN REQUEST ON BEHALF OF THE A SSESSEE, THE APPEAL WAS AGAIN ADJOURNED TO 21.8.2012 GRANTING LA ST OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE. ON 21.8.2012, TAKING A LENIENT VIEW AT THE WRITTEN REQUEST ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE, T HE APPEAL WAS ADJOURNED TO 18.10.2012 AGAIN GRANTING LAST OPPORTU NITY TO THE ASSESSEE. THEREAFTER, THE APPEAL WAS ADJOURNED TO 2 0.11.2012, 17.12.2012 AND 29.1.2013 (TODAY) AND NOTICES FOR TH E SAME WERE ALSO ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE THROUGH REGISTERED POST . HOWEVER TODAY, AT THE TIME OF THE HEARING, THE ASSESSEE NEI THER PRESENTED HIMSELF NOR MOVED ANY ADJOURNMENT PETITION. IT SEEM S THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED TO PURSUE HIS APPEAL, TH EREFORE, IT 3 CANNOT BE KEPT PENDING ADJUDICATION FOR INDEFINITE PERIOD. IT WAS THE DUTY OF THE ASSESSEE TO MAKE NECESSARY ARRANGEM ENTS FOR EFFECTIVE REPRESENTATION ON THE APPOINTED DATE. MERE FILING OF APPEAL IS NOT ENOUGH RATHER IT REQUIRES EFFECTIVE P ROSECUTION ALSO. IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS LIABLE FOR DISMISSAL. OUR VIEW IS SUPPO RTED 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 MAD E FOLLOWING 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 THE REFERENCE, THE COURT IS NOT BOUND TO ANSWER THE REFERENCE. 4 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/APPELLAN T NOR ANY COMMUNICATION FOR ADJOURNMENT WAS RECEIVED. THERE WAS NO COMMUNICATION OR INFORMATION AS TO WHY THE REVENUE CHOSE TO REMAIN ABSENT ON DATE. THE TRIBUNAL ON THE BASIS OF INHERENT POWERS, TREATED T HE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE AS UNADMITTED IN VIEW O F THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 19 OF THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RULES, 1963. 3. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED FOR NON-PROSECUTION. ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT IN THE PRESENCE OF LEARNED CIT/DR ON 29.1.2013. SD/- SD/- (R.C. SHARMA) (JOGINDER SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 29.1.2013 COPY TO: APPELLANT/RESPONDENT/CIT/CIT(A)/DR/GUARD F ILE !VYS!