M/S Sushila Coke & Minerals, Hazaribagh V. ITO WD-2(2), Hazaribagh

ITA 312/RAN/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 117 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9675 (ITAT-RANCHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 4 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Transfer Pricing) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 05-04-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 18-11-2016
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: CHANDAN DAS J
• Section: 147

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RANCHI BENCH SMC RANCHI BEFORE SHRI S.S, GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.312/RAN/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2009-10 M/S SUSHILA COKE & MINERALS, SURESH COLONY, HAZARIBAGH [ PAN NO. ABBFS 9152 R ] / V/S . COMMISSIONER OF INCOME- TAX, RAVINDRA PATH, HAZARIBAGH /APPELLANT .. /RESPONDENT /BY APPELLANT NONE /BY RESPONDENT SHRI CHANDAN DAS, JCIT-DR /DATE OF HEARING 11-01-2019 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 13-02-2019 /O R D E R THIS ASSESSEES APPEAL FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 ARISES AGAINST THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS) HAZARIBAGS ORD ER DATED 08.09.2016 PASSED IN CASE NO.19/HZB/2015-16 INVOLVING PROCEEDINGS U/S 14 7 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961; IN SHORT THE ACT. 2. TODAY WHEN THE CASE WAS CALLED FOR HEARING NON E APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE NOR WAS ANY APPLICATION FOR AN ADJOURNMENT FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IN SPITE OF ISSUE OF NOTICE BY RPAD. IT APPEARS THAT THE ASSESS EE IS NOT SERIOUS IN PROSECUTING THIS APPEAL. HENCE THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS L IABLE TO BE DISMISSED FOR NON- PROSECUTION. FOR THIS VIEW, I FIND SUPPORT FROM THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS:- ' 1. IN THE CASE OF CIT VS B.N.BHATTACHARJEE AND ANOT HER, REPORTED IN 118 ITR 461 [RELEVANT PAGES 477 & 478] WHEREIN THEIR LORDSH IPS HAVE HELD THAT: 'THE APPEAL DOES NOT MEAN MERELY FILING OF THE APPE AL BUT EFFECTIVELY PURSUING IT.' ITA NO. 312/RAN/16 A.Y. 2009-10 M/S SUSHILA COKE & MINERALS VS. CIT, HZB PAGE 2 3. IN THE CASE OF ESTATE OF LATE TUKOJIRAO HOLKAR VS CWT; 223 ITR 480 (MP) 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 MA DE, FAILS TO APPEAR AT THE HEARING, OR FAILS IN TAKING STEPS FOR PREPARATION O F THE PAPER BOOKS SO AS TO ENABLE HEARING OF THE REFERENCE, THE COURT IS NOT B OUND TO ANSWER THE REFERENCE.' 4. IN THE CASE OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX VS MULTIPLAN INDIA (P) L TD .38 ITD 320(DEL), THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE BEFORE TH E TRIBUNAL, WHICH WAS FIXED FOR HEARING. BUT ON THE DATE OF HEARING NOBODY REPRESEN TED THE REVENUE/APPELLANT NOR ANY COMMUNICATION FOR ADJOURNMENT WAS RECEIVED. THERE W AS NO COMMUNICATION OR INFORMATION AS TO WHY THE REVENUE CHOSE TO REMAIN A BSENT ON THAT DATE. THE TRIBUNAL ON THE BASIS OF INHERENT POWERS, TREATED THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE AS UN ADMITTED IN VIEW OF THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 19 OF THE APPELLA TE TRIBUNAL RULES, 1963. 5. I OBSERVE THAT IF THE ASSESSEE IS ADVISED TO FI LE APPROPRIATE APPLICATION FOR RECALLING THE ORDER ON JUST CAUSE IT WILL BE DECIDE D IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DI SMISSED FOR NON- PROSECUTION. ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN ACCORDANCE WITH RULE 34(4) O F THE ITAT RULES BY PUTTING ON NOTICE BOARD ON 13/02/2019 SD/ - (S.S. GODARA) JUDICIAL MEMBER RANCHI, *DKP/SR.PS - 13/02/2019 / COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO:- 1. /APPELLANT-M/S SUSHILA COKE & MINERALS, SURESH COLO NY, HAZARIBAGH 2. /RESPONDENT-CIT, RAVINDRA PATH, HAZARIBAGH 3. $ ' / CONCERNED CIT 4. ' - / CIT (A) 5. ( ++$ , $ / DR, ITAT, RANCHI 6. - / GUARD FILE. BY ORDER/ , SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY/P.S $,