Smt Rajubai Soni,Shri Jagdish Soni & Shri Kailash Soni L/H of Late Shri Roopchand Soni, Ujjain V. The ITO, Ujjain

ITA 333/IND/2010

• Counselvise Citation: 33322714 RSA 2010
• Duration Of Justice: 11 month(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-05-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: Not Allotted
• Assessment Year: 1999-2000
• Appeal Filed On: 28-05-2010
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: APARNA KARAN

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.333/IND/2010 A.Y. 1999-00 SMT. RAJUBAI SONI, SHRI JAGDISH SONI & SHRI KAILASH SONI, ALL LEGAL HEIRS OF LATE SHRI ROOPCHAND SONI, 13, VARUCHI MARG, UJJAIN PAN APTPS 7979 Q ..APPELLANT V/S. ITO-2(1), UJJAIN ..RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : NONE DEPARTMENT BY : SMT. APARNA KARAN, SR. DR ORDER PER JOGINDER SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER THIS APPEAL IS BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A)-UJJAIN, DATED 23.3.2010 ON THE GROUNDS AS DETAILED IN THE G ROUNDS OF APPEALS. DURING HEARING OF THIS APPEAL, NOBODY IS PRESENT FOR THE A SSESSEE WHEREAS SMT. APARNA KARAN, LD. SR. DR IS PRESENT FOR THE REVENUE . 2. THIS APPEAL WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ON 28.5.20 10 AS IS EVIDENT FROM ORDER SHEET ENTRY OF EVEN DATE. THIS APPEAL WAS FIX ED FOR HEARING FOR TODAY I.E. 23.5.2011 ISSUING THE REGISTERED NOTICE BY THE REGI STRY ON 29.3.2011 AND THE NOTICE WAS RETURNED AS UNSERVED BY THE POSTAL AUTHO RITY WITH THE REMARK NOT 2 FOUND ON THE ADDRESS WRITTEN. ON 23.5.2011, THE AS SESSEE NEITHER PRESENTED ITSELF NOR MOVED ANY ADJOURNMENT PETITION. IT SEEMS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED TO PURSUE THE 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 H AS ALSO NOT FILED ANY INFORMATION WITH THE REGISTRY FOR NON-APPEARANCE. I N VIEW OF THESE FACTS, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS LIAB LE 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 TUKOJIRAO HOLKAR V. CWT, 223 ITR 480 (M.P.) WHILE DISMISSING THE REFERENCE MADE AT T HE 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 HEARING OF THE REFE RENCE, 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, WH ICH WAS FIXED FOR HEARING. BUT ON THE DATE OF HEARING, NOBODY RE PRESENTED THE REVENUE/APPELLANT NOR ANY COMMUNICATION FOR ADJOURN MENT WAS RECEIVED. THERE WAS NO COMMUNICATION OR INFORMATIO N AS TO WHY THE REVENUE CHOSE TO REMAIN ABSENT ON DATE. THE TR IBUNAL 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 SR.DR ON 23.5.2011. SD/- SD/- (R.C. SHARMA) (JOGINDER SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 23.5.2011 !VYAS! COPY TO: APPELLANT/RESPONDENT/CIT/CIT(A)/DR/GUARD F ILE