Smt Shantidevi Kasliwal, Indore V. The ACIT, Indore

ITA 295/IND/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 119 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7138 (ITAT-INDORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 4 month(s) 8 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-09-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 18-08-2011
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 12-05-2010
• 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.295/IND/2010 A.Y.: 2007-08 SMT. SHANTIDEVI KASLIWAL, INDFORE PAN ADQPK 3618 R ..APPELLANT V/S. ACIT-1(2), INDORE ..RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : NONE DEPARTMENT BY : SHRI ARUN DEWAN, SR. DR DATE OF HEARING : 20.9.2011 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 20.9.2011 ORDER PER BENCH THIS APPEAL IS BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A)-I, INDORE, DATED 27.1.2010, ON THE GROUNDS AS DETAILED IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. DURING HEARING OF THIS APPEAL, NOBODY IS PR ESENT FOR THE ASSESSEE WHEREAS SHRI ARUN DEWAN, LD. SR. DR IS PRE SENT FOR THE REVENUE. 2. THIS APPEAL WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ON 12.5.20 10 AS IS EVIDENT FROM ORDER SHEET ENTRY OF EVEN DATE. THE APPEAL WAS FIXED FOR HEARING FOR 11.5.2011 AND 18.7.2011 AND ON 18.7.2011, THE A SSESSEE SOUGHT 2 ADJOURNMENT WHICH WAS GRANTED AND THE APPEAL WAS FIX ED FOR HEARING FOR 18.8.2011. ON THAT DATE ALSO, THE ASSESSEE SOUG HT ADJOURNMENT AND THE APPEAL WAS FIXED FOR HEARING FOR 13.9.2011. THE ASSESSEE AGAIN SOUGHT ADJOURNMENT AND THE APPEAL WAS ADJOURNED TO 2 0.9.2011 I.E. TODAY. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, THE ASSESSEE NEITHER PRESENTED HERSELF NOR MOVED ANY ADJOURNMENT PETITION. IT SEEMS THAT THE AS SESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED TO PURSUE HER APPEAL, THEREFORE, IT CANN OT BE KEPT PENDING ADJUDICATION FOR INDEFINITE PERIOD. MERE FILING OF APPEAL IS NOT ENOUGH RATHER IT REQUIRES EFFECTIVE PROSECUTION ALSO. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO NOT FILED ANY INFORMATION WITH THE REGISTRY FOR HER NON -APPEARANCE. IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS LIABLE FOR DISMISSAL. OUR VIEW IS SUPPORTED BY THE FOLLOWI NG JUDICIAL 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 APPE AL BUT EFFECTIVELY PURSUING IT. II) IN THE CASE OF ESTATE OF LATE TUKOJIRAO HOLKAR V. CW T, 223 ITR 480 (M.P.) WHILE DISMISSING THE REFERENCE MADE AT THE INSTANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IN DEFAULT MADE FOLLOWING OBSERVATION 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 HEAR ING 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 COMMUNICA TION 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 BASI S OF INHERENT POWERS, TREATED THE APPEAL FILED BY THE RE VENUE AS UNADMITTED IN VIEW OF THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 19 OF THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RULES, 1963. 3. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED FOR NON-PROSECUTION. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT IN THE PRESENCE OF LEARNED SR.DR ON 20.9.2011. (R.C. SHARMA) (JOGINDER SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 20.9.2011 !VYAS! COPY TO: APPELLANT/RESPONDENT/CIT/CIT(A)/DR/GUARD F ILE