Radhe Agro Farms Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad V. The Income tax Officer,Ward-5(3), Ahmedabad

ITA 3405/AHD/2004

• Counselvise Citation: [2009] 114 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9279 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 9 month(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 01-09-2009
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 01-09-2009
• Assessment Year: 2001-2002
• Appeal Filed On: 29-11-2004
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: B S GAHLOT

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD BENCH B BEFORE SHRI T.K. SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI N.S.SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 3405/AHD/2004 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2001-02 M/S RADHE AGRO FARMS PVT LTD., VS ITO, WARD 5(3) , C/O SURESH R. SHAH & ASSOCIATES, AHMEDABAD AHMEDABAD PAN NO./GIR NO. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY : SH B.S. GAHLOT, CIT DR ORDER PER T.K.SHARMA, J.M. THIS APPEAL IS BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER D ATED 26.8.2004 OF CIT(A)-XI, AHMEDABAD FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-0 2 ON THE GROUNDS AS DETAILED IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. DURING ARGUME NTS NOBODY IS PRESENT FOR THE ASSESSEE AND SHRI B.S.GAHLOT LEARNED CIT DR IS PRESENT FOR THE REVENUE. 2. EARLIER ON MANY OCCASIONS, THIS APPEAL WAS FIXED FOR HEARING BUT THE SAME WAS ADJOURNED FROM TIME TO TIME AT THE REQUEST OF THE ASSESSEE. ULTIMATELY, THE APPEAL WAS FIXED FOR HEARING FOR 1. 9.2009. ON THE DATE OF HEARING, I.E. 1.9.2009, NEITHER ASSESSEE PRESENTED HIMSELF NOR ANY OF HIS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE ATTENDED THE HEARING. IT SEEMS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTEREST TO PURSUE ITS APPEAL. THEREFORE, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE 2 CANNOT BE KEPT PENDING INDEFINITELY, CONSEQUENTLY, THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE DESERVES TO BE DISMISSED. FOR THIS VIEW, WE ARE F ORTIFIED BY THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS: I) IN THE CASE OF CIT V. B.N. BHATTACHARGEE AND ANO THER, 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 THE INSTANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IN DEFAULT MAD E 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/APPELLAN T 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 T HE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE AS UNADMITTED IN VIEW O F THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 19 OF THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RULES, 1963. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED FOR NON- PROSECUTION. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 01-09-2009. SD/- SD/- (N.S.SAINI) (T.K.SHARMA) ACCOUNTNT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 01 SEPT 2009 RKK 3 COPY FORWARDED TO :- 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT (A) -XI AHMEDABAD 4. THE CIT CONCERNED 5. DR 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER TRUE COPY DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD.