SMT. SUDHA GOYAL, Bhopal V. The ACIT 1(1), Bhopal

ITA 429/IND/2014

• Counselvise Citation: 42922714 RSA 2014
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 15-06-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 15-06-2015
• Assessment Year: 2003-2004
• Appeal Filed On: 02-06-2014
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: V I MEHTA

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI D.T. GARASIA, HONBLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B.C. MEENA, HONBLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER 1. ITA NO. 427/IND/2014 A.Y. 2003-04 2. ITA NO. 428/IND/2014 A.Y. 2003-04 3. ITA NO. 429/IND/2014 A.Y. 2003-04 4. ITA NO. 430/IND/2014 A.Y. 2003-04 5. ITA NO. 431/IND/2014 A.Y. 2003-04 6. ITA NO. 432/IND/2014 A.Y. 2003-04 1. SHRI PARMESHWAR DAS GOYAL BHOPAL PAN ABNPG - 2225M 2. SHRI NEERAJ GOYAL BHOPAL PAN ABAPG 6459Q 2 3. SMT. SUDHA GOYAL BHOPAL PAN AENPG 4643N 4. SMT. PREMLATA GOYAL BHOPAL PAN - ABAPG 6461E 5. SMT. KAVITA GOYAL BHOPAL PAN ASFBPG 8245D 6. SHRI OMPRAKASH GARG BHOPAL PAN ABAPG6458R ::: APPELLANTS VS ASSTT.COMMR. OF INCOME TAX 1(1) BHOPAL ::: RESPONDENT APPELLANTS BY NONE RESPONDENT BY SHRI V.I. MEHTA DATE OF HEARING 15. 6.2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 15 .6.2015 O R D E R PER SHRI B.C. MEENA, AM THESE APPEALS FILED BY THE ABOVE ASSESSEES EMANATE FROM DIFFERENT ORDERS OF THE LEARNED CIT(A)-I, BHOPAL, ALL DATED 5.3.2014. 3 2. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, NONE IS PRESENT FOR THESE ASSESSEES WHEREAS SHRI V.I. MEHTA, LD. SENIOR. DR IS PRESENT FOR THE REVENUE. 3. THESE APPEALS WERE FILED BY THESE ASSESSEES ON 2.6.2014. REGISTERED NOTICES FOR HEARING OF THESE APP EALS ON 15.6.2015 WERE SENT TO THESE ASSESSEEE AT THE ADDRESSE S FURNISHED BY THEM IN FORM NO. 36. ON THE DATE OF HE ARING I.E. 15.6.2015 NEITHER ANY APPLICATION FOR ADJOURNMENT WAS MOVED NOR ANYBODY WAS PRESENT FOR THESE ASSESSEES. SHR I V.I. MEHTA, LEARNED SENIOR DR WAS PRESENT FOR THE RE VENUE. 3. FROM THE ABOVE CONDUCT OF THESE ASSESSEE, IT SEEMS THAT THE ASSESSES ARE NOT INTERESTED IN PURSUING THEIR APPEALS. IT WAS THE DUTY OF THE ASSESSEES TO MAKE NECESS ARY ARRANGEMENTS FOR EFFECTIVE REPRESENTATION ON THE APPOIN TED DATE. MERE FILING OF APPEALS IS NOT ENOUGH RATHER IT RE QUIRES EFFECTIVE PROSECUTION ALSO. IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS, W E ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEES ARE LIABLE FOR 4 DISMISSAL. OUR VIEW IS SUPPORTED BY THE FOLLOWING JU DICIAL 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 APPEAL BUT EFFECTIVELY PURSUING IT. II) 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 MADE FOLLOWING OBSERVATION IN THEIR ORDER: 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. 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 COMMUNICATION 5 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 BASIS OF INHERENT POWERS, TREATED THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE AS UNADMITTED IN VIEW OF THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 19 OF THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RULES, 1963. 3. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE APPEALS FILED BY THESE ASSESSEES ARE DISMISSED FOR NON-PROSECUTION. PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 15 TH JUNE, 2015 SD/- SD/- (D.T. GARASIA) (B.C. MEENA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED - 15.6.2015 DN/-