Hetaram Jakhar, Surat V. The Income tax Officer,Ward-2(1), Surat

ITA 4092/AHD/2007

• Counselvise Citation: [2010] 136 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6368 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 6 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 01-06-2010
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 01-06-2010
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 08-11-2007
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: M C

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL: AHMEDABAD C BENCH (BEFORE S/SHRI MUKUL SHRAWAT, JM & A.N.PAHUJA, AM ) ITA NO. 4092/AHD/2007 ASSTT. YEAR:- 2004-05 SH HETARAM JAKHAR PROP. M/S SHALINI SCREEN PRINTING WORKS,85, AMRIT NAGAR,HARI NAGAR- 2,UDHNA,SURAT [PAN:ABCPJ6115A} VS ITO WARD- 2(1), SURAT (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : NONE REVENUE BY : SHRI M.C.PANDIT,DR O R D E R A.N. PAHUJA: THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST A N ORDER DATED 20.08.2007 OF THE LD. CIT(A)-II, SURAT. NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE WHEN THE APPEAL WAS CALLED FOR HEARING NOR ANY REQUEST FOR ADJOURNMENT WAS FILED. IT, THEREFORE, APPEARS THAT THE ASSESEE IS NOT INTERESTED IN PURSUING THE APPEAL. IT IS NOTICED THAT HONBLE B OMBAY HIGH COURT VIDE THEIR ORDER DATED 17.9.2009 IN M/S CHEMIPOL VS. UNION OF INDIA IN CEA NO. 62 OF 2009 REFERRED TO A DECISION OF HONBLE APEX COURT IN SU NDERLAL VS. NANDRAMDAS AIR 1958 MP 260, WHEREIN IT WAS OBSERVED THAT THOUGH TH E ACT DOES NOT GIVE ANY POWER OF DISMISSAL, IT IS AXIOMATIC THAT NO COURT O R TRIBUNAL IS SUPPOSED TO CONTINUE A PROCEEDING BEFORE IT WHEN THE PARTY WHO HAS MOVED IT HAS NOT APPEARED NOR CARED TO REMAIN PRESENT. HONBLE COURT , THUS, HELD THAT T HE DISMISSAL IS AN INHERENT POWER WHICH EVERY TRIBUNAL POSSESSES . THIS WAS APPROVED IN DR. P. NALLA THAMPY VS. SHANKAR 1984 (SUPP) SCC 631. IN NEW INDIA ASSURANCE VS. SRINIVASAN (2000) 3 SCC 242, IT WAS HELD THAT EVERY COURT OR JUDICIAL BODY OR AUTHORITY, WHICH HAS A DUTY TO DEC IDE A LIS BETWEEN TWO PARTIES, INHERENTLY POSSESSES THE POWER TO DISMISS A CASE IN DEFAULT. WHERE A CASE IS CALLED UP FOR HEARING AND THE PARTY IS NOT PRESENT, THE COURT OR THE JUDICIAL OR QUASI JUDICIAL BODY IS UNDER NO OBLIGATION TO KEEP THE MA TTER PENDING BEFORE IT OR TO PURSUE THE MATTER ON BEHALF OF THE PARTY WHO HAD IN STITUTED THE PROCEEDINGS. THAT ITA NO. 4092/AHD/2007 2 IS NOT THE FUNCTION OF THE COURT OR, FOR THAT MATTE R OF A JUDICIAL OR QUASI-JUDICIAL BODY. IN THE LIGHT OF VIEW TAKEN IN THESE DECISION S, HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THEIR AFORESAID DECISION HELD THAT EVERY COURT OR TRIBUNAL HAS AN INHERENT POWER TO DISMISS A PROCEEDING FOR NON PROSECUTION WHEN THE P ETITIONER/APPELLANT BEFORE IT DOES NOT WISH TO PROSECUTE THE PROCEEDING. IN VIEW THEREOF, FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE DELHI BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF M ULTIPLAN (INDIA) PVT. LTD. VS CIT [38 ITD 320] (DEL) AND THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF ESTATE OF LATE TUKOJIRAO HOLKAR VS CWT [(1996) 223 ITR 480 (MP)], THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED IN LI MINE. 2. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL IS DISMISSED . ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 1.06.2010 SD/- SD/- ( MUKUL SHRAWAT) JUDICIAL MEMBER (A.N. PAHUJA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AHMEDABAD DATED 1.06.2010 . COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : THE ASSESSEE/ ITO WARD -2(1), SURAT / THE CIT CONCERNED/ THE CIT(A)- II,SURAT/DR/ GUARD FILE BY ORDER DEPUTY REGISTRAR OF ITAT, AHMEDABAD BENCH