Shri Shaikh Alimuddin, Bhopal V. The ITO 3(1), Bhopal

ITA 347/IND/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 126 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2314 (ITAT-INDORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 year(s) 8 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 15-02-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 14-06-2017
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 11-06-2012
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R P MOURYA
• Section: 2

Judgement Text

1 , , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCHE, INDORE BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 347/IND/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09 SHAIKH ALIMUDDIN BHOPAL / VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER 3(1) BHOPAL (APPELLANT) (REVENUE ) P.A. NO.APVPS 2384H APPELLANT BY NONE RESPONDENT BY SHRI R.P. MOURYA DATE OF HEARING: 13.02.2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 15.02.2018 / O R D E R PER MANISH BORAD, A.M: THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE OR DER OF LD. CIT(A)-2, BHOPAL, DATED 29.12.2010. DURING THE COUR SE OF HEARING NONE APPEARED AT ASSESSEES BEHALF. 2. WE FIND THAT THE APPEAL WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSE E ON 11.6.2012. IT IS EVIDENT FROM RECORD THAT THE PRESENT APPEAL WAS FIXED FOR HEARING 2 ON SO MANY DATES I.E. 14.7.2017, 8.8.2017, 26.9.201 7 AND 13.2.2018 BUT ON ALL THESE DATES THERE WAS NO REPRE SENTATION ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE DESPITE NOTICE. THIS CONDUCT OF THE ASSESSEE SHOWS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED IN PURSUI NG HIS APPEAL, THEREFORE, IT CANNOT BE KEPT PENDING FOR ADJUDICATI ON FOR INDEFINITE PERIOD. IT WAS THE DUTY OF THE ASSESSEE TO MAKE NEC ESSARY ARRANGEMENTS FOR EFFECTIVE REPRESENTATION ON THE AP POINTED DATE. MERE FILING OF APPEAL IS NOT ENOUGH, RATHER IT REQU IRES EFFECTIVE PERSUASION ALSO. 3. IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS LIABLE FOR DISMISSAL. OUR VIEW IS SUPPO RTED 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 TUKOJIRAOHOLKAR V. CW T, 223 ITR 480 (M.P.) WHILE DISMISSING THE REFERENCE MADE AT THE INSTANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IN DEFAULT MADE FOLLOWING OBSERVATION IN THEIR ORDER: 3 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 HEAR ING 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 COMMUNICA TION 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 BASI S OF INHERENT POWERS, TREATED THE APPEAL FILED BY THE RE VENUE AS UNADMITTED IN VIEW OF THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 19 OF THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RULES, 1963. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED FOR NON-PROSECUTION. ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 15.2.2018. S D - (KUL BHARAT) S D (MANISH BORAD) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER INDORE; DATED : 15/02/2018 DN/- COPY TO: ASSESSEE/AO/PR. CIT/ CIT (A)/ITAT (DR)/GUA RD FILE. BY ORDER PRIVATE SECRETARY/DDO, INDORE 4