Smt A.V.Surya Kanthamma, Visakhapatnam V. THE I.T.O., Ward - 4(2), Visakhapatnam

ITA 331/VIZ/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 126 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6661 (ITAT-VISAKHAPATNAM)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 year(s) 14 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-09-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 19-06-2017
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 12-09-2012
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: Y SESHA SRINIVAS

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO , HONBLE JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI D.S. SUNDER SINGH, HONBLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 331 / VIZ /201 2 (ASST. YEAR : 20 08 - 09 ) SMT. A.V. SURYAKANTHAMMA, PROPRIETRIX M/S. SRI SAMPATH VINAYAKA CONSTRUCTIONS, 39 - 8 - 74, MURALINAGAR, VISAKHAPATNAM. V S . IT O , WARD - 4(2) , VISAKHAPATNAM. PAN NO. BJBPP 7649 R (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : NONE . DEPARTMENT BY : SHRI Y. SESHA SRINIVAS - SR. DR DATE OF HEARING : 26 / 0 9 /201 7 . DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 26 / 0 9 /201 7 . O R D E R PER V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) , VISAKHAPATNAM , DATED 28 /0 6 /201 2 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 20 08 - 09 . 2. THIS IS OF 2012 MATTER . I N THIS CASE , AS MANY AS 11 ADJOURNMENTS HAVE BEEN GRANTED ON THE REQUEST OF THE ASSESSEES REPRESENTATIVE . FINALLY, THIS CASE HAS BEEN POSTED FOR HEARING T ODAY . EVEN TODAY ALSO I.E. ON 26/09/2017 , NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE NOR FILED ANY ADJOURNMENT APPLICATION. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED IN 2 ITA NO. 331/VIZ/2012 ( SMT. A.V. SURYA KANTHAMMA ) PROSECUTING H ER APPEAL. IT H AS BEEN HELD BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF B.N. BHATTACHARGEE & ANR., 118 ITR 461 THAT APPEAL DOES NOT MEAN ONLY FILING OF MEMO OF APPEAL BUT ALSO PURSUING IT EFFECTIVELY. IN CASES WHERE THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT WANT TO PURSUE THE APPEAL, COURT /TRIBUNAL HAVE INHERENT POWER TO DISMISS THE APPEAL FOR NON - PROSECUTION, AS HELD BY HONBLE HIGH COURT OF MUMBAI IN THE CASE OF M/S CHEMIPOL VS. UNION OF INDIA IN EXCISE APPEAL NO. 62 OF 2009. IN VIEW OF THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE HONBLE COURTS AND ALSO BY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF MULTIPLAN (INDIA) LTD., 38 ITD 320 AND MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT IN LATE TUKOJIRAO HOLKAR 223 ITR 480 (MP), WE DISMISS THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION. 3. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON TH IS 26 TH DAY OF SEP. , 201 7 . S D / - S D / - ( D.S. SUNDER SINGH ) ( V. DURGA RAO ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 26 TH SEPTEMBER , 201 7 . VR/ - COPY TO: 1. THE ASSESSEE SMT. A.V. SURYAKANTHAMMA, PROPRIETRIX M/S. SRI SAMPATH VINAYAKA CONSTRUCTIONS, 39 - 8 - 74, MURALINAGAR, VISAKHAPATNAM. 2. THE REVENUE - ITO, WARD - 4(2) , VISAKHAPATNAM. 3. THE CIT - 2, VISAKHAPATNAM. 4. THE CIT(A) , GUNTUR. 5. THE D.R . , VISAKHAPATNAM. 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER