M/s. Madan Classic Developer Pvt.Ltd., Indore V. The D.C.I.T., Indore

ITA 248/IND/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2010] 135 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5910 (ITAT-INDORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-10-2010
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2000-2001
• Appeal Filed On: 26-04-2010
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: APARNA KARAN

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 NO.248/IND/2010 A.Y. - 2000-01 MADAN CLASSIC DEVELOPER PVT. LTD. PAN AACCM 0147 P C/O G.J. SHAH & CO., 404, MANAS BHAWAN, 11, RNT MARG, INDORE APPELLANT VS DCIT-1(1), INDORE RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY : SMT. APARNA KARAN, SR. DR O R D E R PER JOGINDER SINGH, JM THIS APPEAL IS BY THE ASSESSEES AGAINST THE ORDER O F THE LEARNED CIT(A)-I, INDORE, DATED 18.1.2010. DURING HEARING O F THIS APPEAL, NOBODY IS PRESENT FOR THE ASSESSEE WHEREAS SMT. APARNA KAR AN, LEARNED SR. DR IS PRESENT FOR THE REVENUE. 2 THIS APPEAL WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ON 26.4.2010 AS IS EVIDENT FROM ORDER SHEET ENTRY OF EVEN DATE. THE APPEAL WAS FIXED FOR HEARING FOR 26.10.2010 FOR WHICH REGISTERED NOTICE FOR HEARING WAS SENT TO THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE NEITHER PRESENTED I TSELF NOR MOVED ANY ADJOURNMENT PETITION. IT SEEMS THAT THE ASSESS EE IS NOT INTERESTED TO PURSUE ITS APPEAL, THEREFORE, IT CANNOT BE KEPT PEN DING ADJUDICATION FOR INDEFINITE PERIOD. MERE FILING OF APPEAL IS NOT ENO UGH RATHER IT REQUIRES EFFECTIVE PROSECUTION ALSO. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO N OT FILED ANY INFORMATION WITH THE REGISTRY FOR ITS NON-APPEARANC E. IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE APPEAL OF THE AS SESSEE IS LIABLE FOR DISMISSAL. OUR VIEW IS SUPPORTED BY THE FOLLOWING J UDICIAL 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. 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 M ADE, FAILS TO APPEAR AT THE HEARING, OR FAILS IN TAKING STEPS FOR PREPARATION 3 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 APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED FOR NON-PROSECUTION. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT IN THE PRESENCE OF LEARNED CIT DR AT THE CONCLUSION OF HEARING ON 27 TH OCTOBER, 2010. SD SD (R.C.SHARMA) (JOGINDER SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 27.10.2010 COPY TO: APPELLANT, RESPONDENT, CIT, CIT(A), DR, G UARD FILE !VYAS!