Shri Dinkar Mulshankar Bhatt, Ahmedabad V. The Income tax Officer,Ward-10(3), Ahmedabad

ITA 368/AHD/2009

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 134 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6211 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 5 month(s) 10 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 14-07-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 14-07-2011
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 04-02-2009
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S K MEENA

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD BENCH A BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A. K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO.368 / AHD/2009 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05) DINKAR MULSHANKAR BHATT, 8-A, NEW UDAYPARK SOICIETY, SANJIVANI HOSPITAL, VASTRAPUR TALAV, AHMEDABAD VS. ITO, WARD 10(3), AHMEDABAD PAN/GIR NO. : AFPPB 2558G (APPELLANT) .. (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: NONE RESPONDENT BY: SHRI S K MEENA, SR. DR O R D E R PER SHRI A. K. GARODIA, AM:- THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST TH E ORDER DATED 28.11.2008 OF LD. CIT(A) XVI, AHMEDABAD FOR THE ASS ESSMENT YEAR 2004- 05. 2. THIS APPEAL WAS FIXED FOR HEARING ON 14 TH JULY 2011 AND THE NOTICE OF HEARING WAS SENT TO THE ASSESSEE THROUGH REGISTERED A.D. POST, WHICH HAS BEEN DULY SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE AS PER THE ACKNOWL EDGEMENT AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IN SPITE OF THIS, NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE ON THIS DATE OF HEARING. THERE IS NO REQUEST FOR ADJOURNMENT. 3. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, IT SEEMS THAT THE ASS ESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED IN PROSECUTING HIS APPEAL; HENCE, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS LIABLE TO I.T.A.NO.368 /AHD/2009 2 BE DISMISSED, FOR NON-PROSECUTION. IN OUR ABOVE VI EW, WE FIND SUPPORT FROM THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS:- IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. B.N. BHATTACHARGEE AND ANOTH ER, REPORTED IN 118 ITR 461 [RELEVANT PAGES 477 & 478], WHEREIN THEIR L ORDSHIPS HAVE HELD THAT:- THE APPEAL DOES NOT MEAN MERELY FILING OF THE APPE AL BUT EFFECTIVELY PURSUING IT. IN THE CASE OF ESTATE OF LATE TUKOJIRAO HOLKAR VS. CWT; 223 ITR 480 (M.P.) WHILE DISMISSING THE REFERENCE MADE AT THE I NSTANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IN DEFAULT MADE FOLLOWING OBSERVATION IN T HEIR ORDER:- IF THE PARTY, AT WHOSE INSTANCE THE REFERENCE IS M ADE, FAILS TO APPEAR AT THE HEARING, OR FAILS IN TAKING STEPS FOR PREPARATI ON OF THE REFERENCE, THE COURT IS NOT BOUND TO ANSWER THE REFERENCE. IN THE CASE OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX VS. MULTI PLAN INDIA (P.) LTD.; 38 ITD 320 (DEL.), THE APPEAL FILED BY THE RE VENUE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL, WHICH WAS FIXED FOR HEARING. BUT ON THE DATE OF HEARING NOBODY REPRESENTED THE REVENUE/APPELLANT NOR ANY CO MMUNICATION FOR ADJOURNMENT WAS RECEIVED. THERE WAS NO COMMUNICATI ON OR INFORMATION AS TO WHY THE REVENUE CHOSE TO REMAIN A BSENT ON THAT DATE. THE TRIBUNAL ON THE BASIS OF INHERENT POWERS, TREAT ED THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE AS UNADMITTED IN VIEW OF THE PROVISI ON OF RULE 19 OF THE APPELLATE RULES, 1963. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASS ESSEE, IS DISMISSED FOR NON- PROSECUTION. 5. THIS DECISION WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT O N 14 TH JULY. 2011. SD./- SD./- (BHAVNESH SAINI) (A. K. GARODIA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED : 14 TH JULY, 2011 SP I.T.A.NO.368 /AHD/2009 3 COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. THE APPLICANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT CONCERNED 4. THE LD. CIT (APPEALS) 5. THE DR, AHMEDABAD 6. THE GUARD FILE 1. DATE OF DICTATION 14/7 2. DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER14/7 OTHER MEMBER 3. DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR. P .S./P.S. 14/7 4. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE THE D ICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT 14/7 5. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE SR. P.S./P.S. 15/7 6. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK 15/7/11 7. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK .. 8. THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE ASSISTANT RE GISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER . 9. DATE OF DESPATCH OF THE ORDER. ..