Shri Dhiraj Pratapsingh Rathod, Nagpur V. Income Tax Officer ,Ward -4(3), Nagpur

ITA 38/NAG/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 134 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1735 (ITAT-NAGPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 6 month(s) 20 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-08-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 29-01-2013
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: NARENDRA KANE

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC BENCH, NAGPUR BEFORE SHRI MUKUL K. SHRAWAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 38/NAG./2013 ( ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006-07 ) SHRI DHIRAJ PRATAPSINGH RATHOD C/O D.S. JOGANI, ADVOCATE 640-A, NAV NIDHI, TEKDI ROAD SADAR, NAGPUR 440 001 PAN ABJPR7148E APPELLANT V/S INCOME TAX OFFICER WAD-4(3), SARAF CHAMBERS MOUNT ROAD, SADAR, NAGPUR 440 001 .... RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : NONE REVENUE BY : SHRI NARENDRA KANE DATE OF HEARING 20.07.2015 DATE OF ORDER 19.08.20 15 O R D E R THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS EMANATING FROM THE ORDER IMPUGNED DATED 7 TH NOVEMBER 2012, PASSED BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), NAGPUR, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEA R 2006-07, ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL:- 1. THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN LAW AND AS WELL AS ON FA CTS IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION BY HOLDING THAT THE APPELLANT HAS NOT BEE N SHRI DHIRAJ PRATAPSINGH RATHOD 2 ABLE TO PRODUCE THE EVIDENCE IN REGARD TO LICENCE FEES PAI D BY APPELLANT. THE ADDITION OF EXPENSES CLAIMED ON ACCOUNT OF LICENC E FEES IS UNJUSTIFIED, BAD-IN-LAW AND UNWARRANTED; AND 2. THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN LAW AND AS WELL AS ON FACTS IN NOT DECIDING ABOUT ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY TREATING THE EXPENSES AS A CAPITAL EXPENSES CLAIMED ON ACCOUNT OF LICENCE FEES PAID BY APPELLANT AS AGAINST REVENUE EXPENDIT URE. THE DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENSES CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE IS BAD -IN- LAW AND UNWARRANTED. 2. WHEN THE CASE WAS CALLED FOR HEARING, NEITHER THE ASS ESSEE NOR ANY OF ITS AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVES APPEARED BEFORE US. THERE IS NO APPLICATION SEEKING ADJOURNMENT EITHER. UNDER THESE CI RCUMSTANCES, WE COME TO A CONCLUSION THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTER ESTED IN PROSECUTING HER APPEAL. 3. THE HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN M/S. CHEMIPO L V/S UNION OF INDIA & ORS., IN CENTRAL EXCISE APPEAL NO.62 OF 2009, VI DE JUDGMENT DATED 17 TH SEPTEMBER 2009, WHILE CONSIDERING THE JUDGMENTS OF H ON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN CIT V/S S. CHENIAPPA MUDALIAR, AIR 1969 SC 1068, SUNDERLAL MANNALAL V/S NANDRAMDAS DWARKADAS, AIR 1958 M P 260, AND OTHER JUDGMENTS, OBSERVED AS FOLLOWS:- 6. WE CANNOT ALTOGETHER LOSE SIGHT OF THE RULE THAT EVERY COURT OR TRIBUNAL HAS AN INHERENT POWER TO DISMISS A PROCEEDING FOR NON-PROSECUTION WHEN THE PETITION / APPELLANT BEFORE IT DOE S NOT WISH TO PROSECUTE THE PROCEEDINGS. IN SUCH A SITUATION, UNLESS THE STATUTE CLEARLY REQUIRES THE COURT OR TRIBUNAL TO HEAR T HE APPEAL / PROCEEDING AND DECIDE IT ON MERITS, IT CAN DIS MISS THE APPEAL / PROCEEDING FOR. SHRI DHIRAJ PRATAPSINGH RATHOD 3 THE DELHI BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN CIT V/S M/S. MULTIP LAN INDIA PVT. LTD. [1991] 38 ITD 320 (DEL.), HAS HELD THAT IN A SIMILAR CIRCUMSTANCES, THE APPEAL MAY BE DISMISSED AS UNADMITTED. 4. APPLYING THE AFORESAID PROPOSITIONS LAID DOWN BY THE HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT AS WELL AS THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL CITED SUPRA, WE TREAT THIS APPEAL AS UNADMITTED AND HOLD T HE SAME AS LIABLE TO BE DISMISSED AS SUCH. 5. IN THE RESULT, ASSESSEES APPEAL STANDS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON SD/ - MUKUL K. SHRAWAT JUDICIAL MEMBER NAGPUR, DATED: 19 TH AUGUST 2015 COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : (1) THE ASSESSEE; (2) THE REVENUE; (3) THE CIT(A); (4) THE CIT, NAGPUR CITY CONCERNED; (5) THE DR, ITAT, NAGPUR; (6) GUARD FILE. TRUE COPY BY ORDER PRADEEP J. CHOWDHURY SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY A SSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, NAGPUR