MAXTOUCH SECURITIES LTD., V. THE I T O WARD 5(1),

ITA 369/IND/2008

• Counselvise Citation: [2010] 136 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3008 (ITAT-INDORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 8 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 05-04-2010
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 05-04-2010
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 01-08-2008
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: K K SINGH

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI JOGINDER SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI V.K. GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NOS.369, 370 & 371/IND/2008 AY: 2005-06 1. MAXTOUCH SECURITIES LTD. (PAN AAQDCM 4409 R) 2. PURSUIT SECURITIES LTD. (PAN AAACP 3800 E) 3. SUNDROP SECURITIES PVT. LTD. (PAN AACCS 5419 C) RNT MARG, INDORE ..APPELLANTS V/S. ITO-5(1), INDORE ..RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : NONE DEPARTMENT BY : SHRI K.K. SINGH, CIT, DR ORDER PER BENCH THESE APPEALS ARE BY THE ASSESSEES AGAINST THE RESP ECTIVE ORDERS OF LD. CIT(A)-II, INDORE, DATED 27.3.2008 ON THE GR OUNDS AS DETAILED IN THE GROUNDS OF RESPECTIVE APPEAL. DURING HEARING OF THESE APPEALS, NOBODY WAS PRESENT FOR THE ASSESSEE WHEREAS SHRI K. K. SINGH, LD. CIT, DR WAS PRESENT FOR THE REVENUE. THESE APPEALS WERE FILED BY THE ASSESSEES ON 4.8.2 008 AS IS EVIDENT FROM RESPECTIVE ORDER SHEET ENTRY. THE APPE ALS WERE FIXED FOR 2 HEARING FOR 5.4.2010 FOR WHICH REGISTERED NOTICES W ERE SENT TO THE ASSESSEES AT THE ADDRESS GIVEN AT FORMS NO.36 OF TH E RESPECTIVE APPEAL. THE REGISTERED NOTICES WERE RETURNED BACK UNSERVED BY THE POSTAL DEPARTMENT WITH REMARKS INCOMPLETE ADDRESS. THE A SSESSEES NEITHER FURNISHED THE CORRECT ADDRESS NOR MADE ANY EFFORTS TO BE PRESENT FOR HEARING ON THE APPOINTED DATE. IT WAS THE DUTY OF T HE ASSESSEES TO FURNISH THE CORRECT ADDRESS WHEREAS THE REGISTRY HA S NO OPTION BUT TO SEND THE REGISTERED NOTICES AT THE GIVEN ADDRESS TH AT TOO BY THE ASSESSEE ITSELF. IT SEEMS THAT THE ASSESSEES ARE NO T INTERESTED TO PURSUE THEIR APPEALS, THEREFORE, THESE CANNOT BE KEPT PEND ING ADJUDICATION FOR INDEFINITE PERIOD. IN VIEW OF THIS FACT, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE LIABLE FOR DISMISSAL. O UR 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. 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. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE A RE DISMISSED FOR NON-PROSECUTION. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT IN THE PRESENCE OF LEARNED CIT, DR ON 5.4.2010. SD SD (V.K. GUPTA) (JOGINDER SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 5.4.2010 !VYAS! COPY TO: APPELLANT/RESPONDENT/CIT/CIT(A)/DR/GUARD F ILE