Hussainullah Hafiz, Burhanpur V. ITO , Burhanpur

ITA 31/Ind/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 110 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0292 (ITAT-INDORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 11 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-12-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 21-12-2020
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 21-01-2019
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S S MANTRI

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE HONBLE KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND HONBLE MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA.NO.31/IND/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014-15 SHRI HUSSAINULLAH HAFIZ, BAUDPURA, BURHANPUR PAN : ABBPH9671C : APPELLANT V/S ITO BURHANPUR : REVENUE ASSESSEE BY NONE REVENUE BY S HRI S.S. MANTRI, CIT DATE OF HEARING 21.12 .2020 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 28 . 1 2 . 2020 O R D E R PER MANISH BORAD, A.M THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE OR DER OF LD. CIT(A)-II, INDORE, DATED 01.11.2018 ON THE GROUNDS AS DETAILED IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING OF THIS APPEAL, NOBODY IS PRESENT FOR THE ASSESSEE WHEREAS SHRI S.S . MANTRI, CIT IS PRESENT FOR THE REVENUE. HUSSAINULLAH HAFIZ ITA NO.31/IND/2019 2 2. THE APPEAL WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ON 18.01.20 19 AS IS EVIDENT FROM ORDER SHEET ENTRY OF EVEN DATE. THE AP PEAL WAS FIXED FOR HEARING ON 19.10.2020 BUT NO ONE WAS PRESENT, THERE FORE, IN ORDER TO PROVIDE ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY, THE CASE WAS ADJOU RNED TO 21.12.2020 I.E. TODAY. NOTICE FOR HEARING ON 21.12. 2020 WAS ISSUED, WHICH WAS DULY SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE AS IS EVIDENT FROM THE AD ON RECORD. BUT AGAIN, NO ONE IS PRESENT ON THE DATE OF HEARING. IT SEEMS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED TO PURSUE HIS APPEAL, THEREFORE, IT CANNOT BE KEPT PENDING FOR ADJUDICATI ON FOR INDEFINITE PERIOD. IT WAS THE DUTY OF THE ASSESSEE TO MAKE NEC ESSARY ARRANGEMENTS FOR EFFECTIVE REPRESENTATION ON THE AP POINTED DATE. MERE FILING OF APPEAL IS NOT ENOUGH RATHER IT REQUI RES EFFECTIVE PERSUASION ALSO. 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 FOLLOWING 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 TUKOJIRAOHOLKAR 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: 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 HUSSAINULLAH HAFIZ ITA NO.31/IND/2019 3 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 WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 28.12.20 20. SD/- SD/- ( KUL BHARAT) (MANI SH BORAD) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER / DATED : 28 DECEMBER, 2020 /DEV COPY TO: THE APPELLANT/RESPONDENT/CIT CONCERNED/CIT (A) CONCERNED/ DR, ITAT, INDORE/GUARD FILE. BY ORDER, ASSTT.REGISTRAR, I.T.A.T., INDORE