Shri Santosh Ahuja, Bhopal V. The ITO 3(2), Bhopal

ITA 23/IND/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 99103 (ITAT-INDORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 10 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 16-11-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 08-01-2014
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R A VERMA

Judgement Text

SANTOSH AHUJA ITA NO. 23/IND/2014 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI D.T. GARASIA, HONBLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B.C. MEENA, HONBLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 23/IND/2014 A.Y.2007-08 SANTOSH AHUJA BHOPAL ::: APPELLANT VS INCOME TAX OFFICER 3(2) BHOPAL ::: RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY NONE RESPONDENT BY SHRI R.A. VERMA DATE OF HEARING 12.10.2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 1 2 .1 0 .2015 O R D E R PER SHRI B.C. MEENA, AM THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE EMANATES FROM THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A)-II, BHOPAL, DATED 28.10.2013. SANTOSH AHUJA ITA NO. 23/IND/2014 2 2. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, NONE IS PRESENT FOR THE ASSESSEE WHEREAS SHRI R.A. VERMA, LD. SR. DR IS PRESENT FOR TH E REVENUE. 3. THIS APPEAL WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. THIS APPEAL W AS FIXED FOR HEARING ON 10.9.2014 ON WHICH DATE NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. THEREAFTER, THIS APPE AL WAS AGAIN FIXED FOR HEARING ON 12.10.2015 FOR WHICH REGISTERED NOTICE FOR HEARING WAS SENT TO THE ASSESS EE AT THE ADDRESS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSE IN FORM NO. 36 BUT O N THE DATE FIXED, NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSE. HOWEVER, SHRI R.A. VERMA, LEARNED SENIOR DR WAS PRESEN T FOR THE REVENUE. 3. FROM THE ABOVE CONDUCT OF THE ASSESSE, IT SEEMS TH AT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED IN PURSUING THE APPEALS . IT WAS THE DUTY OF THE ASSESSEE TO MAKE NECESSARY ARRANGEMENTS FOR EFFECTIVE REPRESENTATION ON THE APPOIN TED DATE. MERE FILING OF APPEAL IS NOT ENOUGH RATHER IT REQU IRES SANTOSH AHUJA ITA NO. 23/IND/2014 3 EFFECTIVE PROSECUTION ALSO. IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS, W E ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS LIABLE FOR DISMISSAL. OUR VIEW IS SUPPORTED BY THE FOLLOWING JU DICIAL 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 APPEAL BUT EFFECTIVELY PURSUING IT. II) IN THE CASE OF ESTATE OF LATE TUKOJIRAOHOLKAR 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: 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 REFERENCE. III) IN THE CASE OF CIT V. MULTIPLAN INDIA LTD., 38 ITD 320 (DEL), THE APPEAL FILED BY THE SANTOSH AHUJA ITA NO. 23/IND/2014 4 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 DATE. THE TRIBUNAL ON THE BASIS OF INHERENT POWERS, TREATED THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE AS UNADMITTED IN VIEW OF 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. PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 12 TH OCTOBER, 2015. SD SD (D.T. GARASIA) (B.C. MEENA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER 16 TH NOVEMBER, 2015 DN/- SANTOSH AHUJA ITA NO. 23/IND/2014 5