M/S FORTUNE BUILDERS, Bhopal V. THE ACIT 1(2), Bhopal

ITA 269/IND/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 121 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1952 (ITAT-INDORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 7 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-11-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 24-11-2015
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 11-04-2014
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R A VERMA

Judgement Text

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 NOS. 269 TO 271/IND/2014 A.YS.2006-07 TO 2008-09 M/S FORTUNE BUILDERS BHOPAL ::: APPELLANT VS ASSTT.COMMR. OF INCOME TAX 1(2) BHOPAL ::: RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY NONE RESPONDENT BY SHRI R.A. VERMA DATE OF HEARING 24.11.2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 30.11.2015 O R D E R PER SHRI B.C. MEENA, AM THESE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE EMANATE FROM THE DIFFERENT ORDERS OF THE LEARNED CIT(A), BILSAPUR, CAMP AT BHOPAL DATED 12.9.2013. 2 2. NONE ATTENDED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF THESE APPEALS. HOWEVER, THE LEARNED DR WAS PRESENT. 3. THESE APPEALS WERE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. THESE APPEALS WERE FIXED FOR HEARING ON 16.7.2015 ON WHICH D ATE THE CASE WAS ADJOURNED ON THE REQUEST OF THE ASSESSEE. THEREAFTER, THIS APPEAL WAS AGAIN FIXED FOR HEARING ON 29.7.2015 ON WHICH DATE ALSO THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SOUGHT ADJOURNMENT. THESE APPEALS WERE THEREAFTER AGAIN FIXED FOR HEARING ON 28.9.2015 ON WHI CH DATE ALSO THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SOUGHT ADJOURNMENT. AGAIN THESE APPEALS WERE FIXED FOR HEARING ON 24.11.2015 ON WHICH DATE ALSO NEITHER THERE WAS ANY REPRESENTATION ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE NOR ANY APPLICATION FOR ADJOURNMENT WAS FILED. 3. FROM THE ABOVE CONDUCT OF THE ASSESSE, IT SEEMS TH AT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED IN PURSUING THE APPEALS . IT 3 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 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 4 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 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 APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED FOR NON-PROSECUTION. PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 30 TH NOVEMBER, 2015 SD SD (D.T. GARASIA) (B.C. MEENA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER 30 TH NOVEMBER, 2015 DN/- 5