THE KRISHI UPAJ MANDI, V. THE A C I T 5 (1),

ITA 322/IND/2008

• Counselvise Citation: [2009] 115 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1472 (ITAT-INDORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 4 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 11-11-2009
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 11-11-2009
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 11-07-2008
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: V K KARAN

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI JOGINDER SINGH, JM AND SHRI V.K. GUPTA, AM ITA NO.322/IND/2008 AY : 2004-05 KRISHI UPAJ MANDI SAMITI, MAHESHWAR ROAD, BARWAHA (AAGFK 9083 R) .....APPELLANT V/S. ACIT-5(1), INDORE .....RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : NONE DEPARTMENT BY : SHRI V.K. KARAN, SR. DR ORDER PER JOGINDER SINGH, JM THIS APPEAL IS BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A)-II, INDORE, DATED 17.3.2008 ON THE GROUNDS AS DETAILED IN THE G ROUNDS OF APPEAL. DURING HEARING OF THIS APPEAL, NONE IS PRESENT FOR THE ASS ESSEE AND SHRI V.K. KARAN, SR. DR IS PRESENT FOR THE REVENUE. 2. THIS APPEAL WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ON 11.7.20 08 AS IS EVIDENT FROM ORDER SHEET ENTRY OF EVEN DATE. APPEAL WAS FIXED FO R HEARING FOR TODAY I.E. 11.11.2009 FOR WHICH REGD. AD NOTICE WAS SENT TO TH E ASSESSEE ON 11.9.2009. THE ASSESSEE NEITHER PRESENTED ITSELF NOR MOVED ANY ADJOURNMENT PETITION. IT 2 SEEMS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED TO PURSUE ITS APPEAL, CONSEQUENTLY, IT CANNOT BE KEPT PENDING INDEFINITELY, THEREFORE, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE DESERVES TO BE DISMISSED. 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 APPEAL BUT EFFECTIVELY PURSUING IT. II) IN THE CASE OF ESTATE OF LATE TUKOJIRAO HOLKAR V. CWT, 223 ITR 480 (M.P.) WHILE DISMISSING THE REFERENCE MADE AT THE INSTANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IN DEFAULT MADE FOLLOWING OBSERVATION IN THEIR ORDER: F 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 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 COMMUNICATION 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 BASIS OF INHERENT POWERS, TREATED THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE AS UNADMITTED IN VIEW OF THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 19 OF THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RULES, 1963. 3 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 DR ON 11.11.2009. SD/- SD/- (V.K. GUPTA) (JOGINDER SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 11.11.2009 {VYAS} COPY TO: APPELLANT/RESPONDENT/CIT/ CIT(A)/DR