M/s. New Maharashtra Traders, Kolhapur V. ITO, Wd.-1(2), Kolhapur

ITA 230/PUN/2010

• Counselvise Citation: 23024514 RSA 2010
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 5 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-07-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 25-07-2011
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 10-02-2010
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SANJAY SINGH
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH A, PUNE BEFORE SHRI I.C. SUDHIR, JUDICIA LMEMBER AND SHRI G.S. PANNU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 230/PN/2010 (ASSTT. YEAR: 2006-07) NEW MAHARASHTRA TRADERS, .. APPELLANT 1405 C WARD, LAXMIPUR, KOLHAPUR VS. INCOME-TAX OFFICER .. RESPONDENT WD. 1(2) KOLHAPUR APPELLANT BY: NONE RESPONDENT BY : SHRI SANJAY SINGH ORDER PER G.S. PANNU, A.M .: THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDE R OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS), KOLHAPUR DATED 2 1.12.2009, WHICH IN TURN, HAS ARISEN FROM THE ORDER PASSED BY ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT), PERTAI NING TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. 2. IN THIS CASE, NOTICE WAS ISSUED FIXING THE CASE FOR HEARING ON 25.7.2011 AND THE NOTICE OF HEARING WAS DULY SENT. HOWEVER, ON 25.07.2001, NEITHER ASSESSEE ATTENDED NOR THERE WAS ANY REQUEST FOR ADJOURNMENT. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED IN PROSECUTING HIS APPEA L. IT HAS BEEN HELD BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF B.N. BH TTACHARGEE & ANR., 118 ITR 461(SC) THAT APPEAL DOES NOT MEAN ONLY FILI NG OF MEMO OF APPEAL BUT ALSO PURSUING IT EFFECTIVELY. IN CASES WHERE THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT WANT TO PURSUE THE APPEAL, COURT/TRIBUNAL HAVE INHERENT POWER TO DISMISS THE APPEAL FOR NON- PROSECUTION, A S HELD BY HONBLE 2 HIGH COURT OF MUMBAI IN THE CASE OF M/S CHEMIPOL VS . UNION OF INDIA IN EXCISE APPEAL NO. 62 OF 2009. IN VIEW OF THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE HONBLE COURTS AND ALSO FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF T HE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF MULTIPLAN (INDIA) LTD., 38 ITD 320 AND MADH YA PRADESH HIGH COURT IN LATE TUKOJIRAO HOLKAR 223 ITR 480 (MP), WE DISMISS THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION. 3. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DIS MISSED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE CONCL USION OF THE HEARING ITSELF. SD/- SD/- (I.C. SUDHIR) (G.S. PANNU) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER PUNE: 25 TH JULY, 2011 COPY TO:- 1) ASSESSEE 2) DEPARTMENT 3) THE CIT(A) KOLHAPUR 4) THE CIT KOLHAPUR 5) THE DR, A BENCH, I.T.A.T., PUNE. 6) GUARD FILE BY ORDER TRUE COPY ASST. REGISTRAR, I.T.A.T., PUNE B