M/s Euro Venures, Bangalore V. CIT, Bangalore

ITA 295/BANG/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2289 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 4 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 01-07-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 01-07-2013
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 29-02-2012
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ETWA MUNDA CITIIIDR
• Section: 263

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N.V. VASUDEVAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI JASON P. BOAZ, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.295/BANG/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007-08 M/S. EURO VENTURES, NO.339/1A, ANANTHARAMAIAH WOOLEN FACTORY COMPOUND, BAPUJINAGAR, BANGALORE 560 026. PAN : AACFE 0048E VS. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE-1, BANGALORE. APPELLANT RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY : SHRI ETWA MUNDA, CIT-III(DR) DATE OF HEARING : 01.07.2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 01.07.2013 O R D E R PER N.V. VASUDEVAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 25.11.2011 OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, BANGALORE-1, BAN GALORE PASSED U/S. 263 OF THE ACT. ITA NO.295/BANG/2012 PAGE 2 OF 3 2. THE APPEAL WAS LISTED FOR HEARING ON 23.10.2012, 19.11.2012, 30.01.2013, 27.03.2013, 08.05.2013 AND 29.05.2013. ON ALL THESE OCCASIONS, THE AR OF THE ASSESSEE SOUGHT ADJOURNMEN T. THE CASE WAS LISTED FOR HEARING TODAY I.E., ON 01.07.2013. NOTI CE OF HEARING WAS DULY SERVED ON THE ASSESSEES AR. WHEN THE CASE WAS CAL LED FOR HEARING, NONE APPEARED FOR THE ASSESSEE. NO ADJOURNMENT PETITION SEEKING ADJOURNMENT OF THE CASE WAS ALSO FILED. THE ABOVE CONDUCT ON T HE PART OF THE ASSESSEE SHOWS THAT IT IS NOT INTERESTED IN PROSECUTING THE APPEAL FILED BY IT. 3. CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND KEEPING IN VIEW THE PR OVISIONS OF RULE 19(2) OF THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RULES AS WERE CONSIDERED IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. MULTIPLAN INDIA LTD., (38 ITD 320)(DEL) WE TREAT THIS APPEAL AS UNADMITTED. SIMILAR VIEW HAS BEEN TAKEN BY THE HONBLE MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF ESTATE OF LATE TUKOJIRAO HOLKAR VS. CWT (223 ITR 480) WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN HELD AS UNDER: 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 PAPER BOOKS SO AS TO ENABLE HEARING OF THE REFE RENCE, THE COURT IS NOT BOUND TO ANSWER THE REFERENCE. 4. THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. B. BHATTACHARJEE & ANOTHER (118 ITR 461 AT PAGE 477-478) HELD THAT THE APPEAL DOES NOT MEAN, MERE FILING OF THE M EMO OF APPEAL BUT EFFECTIVELY PURSUING THE SAME. ITA NO.295/BANG/2012 PAGE 3 OF 3 5. FOLLOWING THE RATIO OF THE AFORESAID DECISIONS, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED IN LIMINE FOR NON-PROSECUTION. HOWEVER, IF THE ASSESSEE THROUGH PROPER APPLICATION CAN SATISFY THE TRIBUNAL FOR SUCH NON- APPEARANCE ON THE APPOINTED DATE, THE TRIBUNAL, AT ITS DISCRETION, MAY RECALL THIS ORDER. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 1 ST DAY OF JULY, 2013. SD/- SD/- ( JASON P. BOAZ ) ( N.V. VASUDEVA N ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBE R BANGALORE, DATED, THE 1 ST JULY, 2013. D S/- COPY TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT, BANGALORE. 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER SENIOR PRIVATE SECRETARY ITAT, BANGALORE.