Shri Kishorbhai Bhikhabhai Virani, Bhavnagar V. The ACIT.,Circle-1, Bhavnagar

ITA 27/AHD/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 63257 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 11 month(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-12-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 06-12-2012
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 04-01-2010
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: I T VARASI

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, C BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI A. K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 27/ AHD/2010 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07) KISHOREBHAI BHIKHABHAI VIRANI, VS. ACIT, CIRCLE 1, 66, SHANTA BHUVAN, BHAVNAGAR KUMUD WADI, BHAVNAGAR PAN/GIR NO. : AAWPV1516G (APPELLANT) .. (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: NONE RESPONDENT BY: MS. I T VARASI, SR. DR DATE OF HEARING: 04.04.2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 04.04.2012 O R D E R PER SHRI A. K. GARODIA, AM:- THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE WAS FIXED FOR HEARING ON 04.04.2012. THE NOTICE OF HEARING WAS SENT TO THE ASSESSEE BY R PAD, WHICH HAS DULY BEEN SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE AS PER THE ACKNOWLEDGEM ENT AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IN SPITE OF THIS, NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE APPOINTED DATE OF HEARING AND THERE IS NO REQUEST F OR ADJOURNMENT. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, IT IS INFERRED THAT THE ASSESS EE IS NOT INTERESTED IN PURSUING HIS APPEAL AND HENCE, THE SAME IS LIABLE T O BE DISMISSED FOR NON PROSECUTION. IN OUR ABOVE VIEW, WE FIND SUPPORT FRO M THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS:- I.T.A.NO.27 /AHD/2010 2 IN THE CASE OF CIT VS B.N. BHATTACHARGEE AND ANOTHE R, REPORTED IN 118 ITR 461 (RELEVANT PAGES 477 AND 478) WHEREIN TH EIR LORDSHIPS HAVE HELD THAT THE APPEAL DOES NOT MEAN MERELY FIL ING OF THE APPEAL BUT EFFECTIVELY PURSUING IT. IN THE CASE OF ESTATE OF LATE TUKOJIRAO HOLKAR VS C IT 223 ITR 480 (M.P.) WHILE DISMISSING THE REFERENCE MADE AT THE I NSTANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IN DEFAULT MADE FOLLOWING OBSERVATION IN T HEIR 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 HEARING OF THE REFERENC E, THE COURT IS NOT BOUND TO ANSWER THE REFERENCE. IN THE CASE OF CIT VS MULTIPLAN INDIA LIMITED; 38 ITD 320 (DEL), THE APPEAL WAS FILED BY THE REVENUE BEFORE THE TRIB UNAL, WHICH WAS FIXED FOR HEARING. BUT ON THE DATE OF HEARING, NOB ODY REPRESENTED THE REVENUE/APPELLANT NOR ANY COMMUNICATION FOR ADJ OURNMENT WAS RECEIVED. THERE WAS NO COMMUNICATION OR INFORMATIO N AS TO WHY THE REVENUE CHOSE TO REMAIN ABSENT ON DATE. THE TR IBUNAL 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. 2. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE STANDS DISMISSED. 3. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE DATE M ENTIONED HEREINABOVE. SD./- SD./- (KUL BHARAT) (A. K. GARODIA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SP I.T.A.NO.27 /AHD/2010 3 COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. THE APPLICANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT CONCERNED 4. THE LD. CIT (APPEALS) 5. THE DR, AHMEDABAD BY ORDER 6. THE GUARD FILE AR,ITAT,AHMEDABAD 1. DATE OF DICTATION 4/4 2. DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER 4/4.OTHER MEMBER 3. DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR. P .S./P.S. 4. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE THE D ICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT 4/4 5. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE SR. P.S./P.S.9/4 6. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK 10/4/12 7. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK .. 8. THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE ASSISTANT RE GISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER . 9. DATE OF DESPATCH OF THE ORDER. .