Appeal details
Counselvise Citation
[2018] 118 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2096 (ITAT-SURAT)
Assessee PAN
Bench
Appeal Number
Duration Of Justice
4 year(s) 2 month(s) 18 day(s)
Appellant
Respondent
Appeal Type
Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date
25-04-2018
Appeal Filed By
Assessee
Order Result
Dismissed
Bench Allotted
DB
Assessment Year
2009-2010
Appeal Filed On
06-02-2014
Judgement Text
SHRI SADARAM BHAWARAM CHAUDHARY / ITA NO.379/AHD/2014/SRT /A.YS.:2009-10 PAGE 1 OF 2 , , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SURAT BENCH, SURAT . . , . . , BEFORE SHRI C.M.GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI O.P.MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER . . ./ I.T. A NO.379/AHD/2014/SRT / A.YS.:2009-10 SHRI SADARAM BHAWARAM CHAUDHARY, C/O. RAJESHWAR MOBILE SHOP, SHOP NO.4, KUMBESHWAR COMPLEX, GIDC ANKLESHWAR, ANKLESHWAR, GUJARAT 393 002. PAN: AKKPC 4978K V S . INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2), SURAT. APPELLANT /RESPONDENT /ASSESSEE BY NONE. /REVENUE BY SHRI J.K.CHANDNANI , SR.DR / DATE OF HEARING: 25 .04 .2018 /PRONOUNCEMENT ON 25 .04.2018 /O R D E R PER O. P. MEENA, ACCOUTANT MEMBER: 1. THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS)-II, SURAT DATED 09.12.2013 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 AGAINST ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT). 2. DURING HEARING OF THIS APPEAL, NOBODY IS PRESENT FOR THE ASSESSEE, WHEREAS THE LD.SR DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE IS PRESENT FOR THE REVENUE. 3. THE HEARING OF APPEAL WAS FIXED ON 25.04.2018, BUT NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE NOR WAS ANY APPLICATION FOR ADJOURNMENT RECEIVED FROM THE ASSESSEE AT THE TIME OF THE HEARING. IT SEEMS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED TO PURSUE THE APPEAL, THEREFORE, IT CANNOT BE KEPT PENDING FOR ADJUDICATION FOR INDEFINITE PERIOD. IT WAS THE DUTY OF THE ASSESSEE TO MAKE NECESSARY ARRANGEMENTS SHRI SADARAM BHAWARAM CHAUDHARY / ITA NO.379/AHD/2014/SRT /A.YS.:2009-10 PAGE 2 OF 2 FOR EFFECTIVE REPRESENTATION ON THE APPOINTED DATE. MERE FILING OF APPEAL IS NOT ENOUGH RATHER IT REQUIRES EFFECTIVE PERSUASION ALSO. IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE LIABLE FOR DISMISSAL IN THE LIGHT OF JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS BY HON`BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V. B. N. BHATTACHARJEE & OTHERS 118 ITR 461(SC), WHEREIN THEIR LORDSHIP HAVE HELD THAT THE APPEAL DOES NOT MEAN MERELY FILING OF THE APPEAL BUT EFFECTIVELY PURSUING IT.FURTHER, THE HON`BLE MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT 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 THEIR LORDSHIP OBSERVE AS THAT IF 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 . FURTHER, IN THE CASE OF CIT V. MULTIPLAN INDIA LTD., 38 ITD 320 (DEL), THERE WAS NO COMMUNICATION OR INFORMATION AS TO WHY THE REVENUE CHOSE TO REMAIN ABSENT ON DATE, HENCE, ON THE BASIS OF INHERENT POWERS, THE TRIBUNAL TREATED THE APPEAL; FILED BY THE REVENUE; AS UNADMITTED IN VIEW OF THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 19 OF THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RULES, 1963. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED FOR NON-PROSECUTION. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 25-04-2018. SD/- SD/- ( . . /C.M. GARG) ( . . / O.P.MEENA) /JUDICIAL MEMBER /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER / SURAT, DATED: 25 TH APRIL , 2018 S.GANGADHARA RAO COPY OF ORDER SENT TO- ASSESSEE/AO/PR. CIT/ CIT (A)/ ITAT (DR)/GUARD FILE OF ITAT. BY ORDER / / TRUE COPY / / / / ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, SURAT
Mehul