M/s Smiling Faces Society, Indore V. The CIT-I, Indore

ITA 28/IND/2011

• Counselvise Citation: 2822714 RSA 2011
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-10-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: Not Allotted
• Next Hearing Date: 31-10-2011
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 28-04-2011
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ARUN DEWAN

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.27 & 28/IND/2011 SMILING FACES SOCIETY, INDORE PAN ACYPM 1094 N ..APPELLANT V/S. CIT-I, INDORE ..RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : NONE DEPARTMENT BY : SHRI ARUN DEWAN, SR. DR DATE OF HEARING : 31.10.2011 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 31.10.2011 ORDER PER BENCH BOTH THESE APPEALS ARE BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE DIFFERENT ORDERS OF LD. CIT-I, INDORE, DATED 28.2.2011 ON THE GROUNDS AS DE TAILED IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEALS. DURING HEARING OF THESE APPEALS, NOBODY IS PRESENT FOR THE ASSESSEE WHEREAS SHRI ARUN DEWAN, LD. SR. DR IS PRESENT FOR THE REVENUE. 2. THESE APPEALS WERE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ON 28.4 .2011 AS IS EVIDENT FROM ORDER SHEET ENTRY OF EVEN DATE. THESE APPEALS WERE FIXED FOR HEARING FOR TODAY I.E. 31.10.2011, FOR WHICH, RPAD NOTICE WAS SENT BY THE REGISTRY AT THE ADDRESS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE IN FORM NO.36, WHICH WAS SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE AS IS EVIDENT FROM THE AD AVAILABLE ON RECORD. TODAY, THE ASSESSEE NEITHER PRESENTED ITSELF NOR MOVED ANY ADJOURNMENT PETITION. IT SEEMS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED TO PURSUE ITS APPEALS, THEREFORE, IT CAN NOT BE KEPT PENDING ADJUDICATION FOR INDEFINITE PERIOD. MERE FILING OF APPEAL IS NOT ENO UGH RATHER IT REQUIRES EFFECTIVE 2 PROSECUTION ALSO. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO NOT FILED A NY INFORMATION WITH THE REGISTRY FOR ITS NON-APPEARANCE. IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE LIABLE FOR DISMISSAL. OUR VIEW IS SUPPORTED BY THE FOLLOWING JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS: I) IN THE CASE OF CIT V. B.N. BHATTACHARGEE AND ANO THER, 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 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 PREPARATI ON 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 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 INHER ENT POWERS, TREATED THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE AS UNADMITTED IN VI EW 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. SD/- SD/- (R.C. SHARMA) (JOGINDER SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 31.10.2011 COPY TO: APPELLANT/RESPONDENT/CIT/CIT(A)/DR/GUARD F ILE