Shri Shankarlal Chawlani, Bhopal V. The ITO 2(2), Bhopal

ITA 286/IND/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 70078 (ITAT-INDORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 6 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-11-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 13-05-2013
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R A VERMA

Judgement Text

1 INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI JOGINDER SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI R.C. SHARMA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.286/IND/2013 A.Y. 2009-10 SHANKARLAL CHAWLANI, BHOPAL PAN ACXPC 3333 P ..APPELLANT V/S. ITO-2(2), BHOPAL ..RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY NONE REVENUE BY SHRI R.A. VERMA, SR. DR DATE OF HEARING 19.11.2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 19.11. 2013 ORDER PER JOGINDER SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER THIS APPEAL IS BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER DA TED 18.1.2013 PASSED BY THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY, ON THE GROUNDS AS DETAILED IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. DURING HEARING OF THIS APPEAL, N OBODY IS PRESENT FOR THE ASSESSEE WHEREAS SHRI R.A. VERMA, LD. SR. DR IS PRE SENT FOR THE REVENUE. 2. THIS APPEAL WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ON 13.5.20 13 AS IS EVIDENT FROM ORDER SHEET ENTRY OF EVEN DATE. REGISTERED NOT ICE FOR HEARING FOR 2 22.10.2013 WAS ISSUED BY THE REGISTRY AND AT THE WR ITTEN REQUEST, THROUGH FAX, ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE, THE CASE WAS ADJOUR NED TO 19.11.2013, FOR WHICH, THE REGISTERED NOTICE WAS ALSO ISSUED BY THE REGISTRY ON 24.10.2013. HOWEVER, TODAY, I.E. 19.11.2013, AT THE TIME OF THE HEARING, THE ASSESSEE NEITHER PRESENTED HIMSELF NOR MOVED ANY ADJOURNMENT PETITION. IT SEEMS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED TO PURSUE HIS A PPEAL, THEREFORE, SAME CANNOT BE KEPT PENDING ADJUDICATION FOR INDEFINITE PERIOD. IT WAS THE DUTY OF THE ASSESSEE TO MAKE NECESSARY ARRANGEMENTS FOR EFFECTIVE REPRESENTATION ON THE APPOINTED DATE. MERE FILING O F APPEAL IS NOT ENOUGH RATHER IT REQUIRES EFFECTIVE PROSECUTION ALSO. IN V IEW OF THESE FACTS, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS LIAB LE FOR DISMISSAL. OUR VIEW IS SUPPORTED BY THE FOLLOWING JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMEN TS: 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. C WT, 223 ITR 480 (M.P.) WHILE DISMISSING THE REFERENCE MADE AT T HE INSTANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IN DEFAULT MADE FOLLOWING OBSERVATI ON IN THEIR ORDER: 3 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 REFE RENCE, 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, WH ICH WAS FIXED FOR HEARING. BUT ON THE DATE OF HEARING, NOB ODY REPRESENTED THE REVENUE/APPELLANT NOR ANY COMMUNICA TION FOR ADJOURNMENT WAS RECEIVED. THERE WAS NO COMMUNICATI ON OR INFORMATION AS TO WHY THE REVENUE CHOSE TO REMAIN A BSENT ON DATE. THE TRIBUNAL ON THE BASIS OF INHERENT POWERS , TREATED THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE AS UNADMITTED IN VIEW O F THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 19 OF THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RUL ES, 1963. 3. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED FOR NON-PROSECUTION. ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT IN THE PRES ENCE OF LEARNED SENIOR DR ON 19.11.2013. SD/- SD/- (R.C. SHARMA) (JOGINDER SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 19.11.2013 COPY TO: APPELLANT/RESPONDENT/CIT/CIT(A)/DR/GUARD F ILE !VYAS!