Shri Mukesh Sangla, Indore V. The DCIT, Indore

ITA 360/IND/2010

• Counselvise Citation: 36022714 RSA 2010
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-06-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: Not Allotted
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 01-06-2010
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ARUN DEWAN

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.360/IND/2010 A.Y.: 2007-08 MUKESH SANGLA INDORE PAN ANAPS 5579 F ..APPELLANT V/S. DCIT-1(1), INDORE ..RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : NONE DEPARTMENT BY : SHRI ARUN DEWAN, SR. DR ORDER PER JOGINDER SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER THIS APPEAL IS BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A)-I, INDORE, DATED 3.3.2010, ON THE GROUNDS AS DETAILED IN THE G ROUNDS OF APPEAL. DURING HEARING OF THIS APPEAL, NOBODY IS PRESENT FOR THE A SSESSEE WHEREAS SHRI ARUN DEWAN, LD. SR. DR IS PRESENT FOR THE REVENUE. 2. THIS APPEAL WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ON 1.6.201 0 AS IS EVIDENT FROM ORDER SHEET ENTRY OF EVEN DATE. EARLIER, THE APPEAL WAS FIXED FOR HEARING FOR 30.5.2011 AND AT THE WRITTEN REQUEST ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE, SAME WAS ADJOURNED TO TODAY I.E. 21.6.2011. TODAY, THE ASSESSEE NEITHER PRESENTED HIMSELF NOR MOVED ANY ADJOURNMENT PETITION. IT SEEMS 2 THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED TO PURSUE HIS A PPEAL, THEREFORE, IT CANNOT BE KEPT PENDING ADJUDICATION FOR INDEFINITE P ERIOD. MERE FILING OF APPEAL IS NOT ENOUGH RATHER IT REQUIRES EFFECTIVE P ROSECUTION ALSO. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO NOT FILED ANY INFORMATION WITH TH E REGISTRY FOR HIS NON- APPEARANCE. IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS, WE ARE OF THE V IEW THAT THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS LIABLE 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. C WT, 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 FI LED 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 21.6.2011. (R.C. SHARMA) (JOGINDER SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 21.6.2011 !VYAS! COPY TO: APPELLANT/RESPONDENT/CIT/CIT(A)/DR/GUARD F ILE