Shri Shama Patil Tembode, Raigad V. ITO Wd.-1, Panvel

ITA 464/PUN/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 56371 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 4 month(s) 10 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 05-08-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 26-03-2010
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SANJAY SINGH

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH A, PUNE BEFORE SHRI SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI G.S. PANNU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO 464/PN/10 (ASSTT. YEAR: 2005-06) SHRI SHAMA PATIL, .. APPELLANT TEMBODE TAL. PANVEL, DIST. RAIGAD C/0 V Y MHATRE & CO. 104 SHAH PLAZA NEAR ADARSH HOTEL PRABHU ALI, PANVEL, DIST. RAIGAD VS. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, RESPONDENT WD. 1, PANVEL AND ITA NO 465/PN/10 (ASSTT. YEAR: 2005-06) SMT ANANDI SHAMA PATIL, .. APPELLANT TEMBODE C/0 V Y MHATRE & CO. 104 SHAH PLAZA NEAR ADARSH HOTEL PRABHU ALI, PANVEL, DIST. RAIGAD VS. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, RESPONDENT WD. 1, PANVEL APPELLANTS BY: NONE RESPONDENT BY: SHRI SANJAY SINGH ORDER PER G.S. PANNU, AM THESE APPEALS BY TWO ASSESSEES OF SAME FAMILY ARE DIRECTE D AGAINST SEPARATE ORDERS OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEA LS)-I, THANE DATED 14.11.2008, WHICH IN TURN, HAVE ARISEN OUT OF THE ORD ERS PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER SECTION 1444 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT), PERTAINING TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06. 2. IN THESE CASES, NOTICE WAS ISSUED FIXING THE CAS ES FOR HEARING ON 03.08.2011 AND THE NOTICE OF HEARING WAS DULY SENT. HOWEVER, ON 2 03.08.2011, NEITHER ASSESSEES ATTENDED NOR THERE WA S ANY REQUEST FOR ADJOURNMENT. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEES ARE NOT INTERESTED IN PROSECUTING THEIR A PPEALS. IT HAS BEEN HELD BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF B. N. BHTTACHARGEE & ANR., 118 ITR 461(SC) THAT APPEAL DOES NOT MEAN ONL Y FILING OF MEMO OF APPEAL BUT ALSO PURSUING IT EFFECTIVELY. IN CAS ES WHERE THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT WANT TO PURSUE THE APPEAL, COURT/TRIBUNAL HAVE INHERENT POWER TO DISMISS THE APPEAL FOR NON- PROSECUTION, A S HELD BY HONBLE HIGH COURT OF MUMBAI IN THE CASE OF M/S CHEMIPOL VS . UNION OF INDIA IN EXCISE APPEAL NO. 62 OF 2009. IN VIEW OF THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE HONBLE COURTS AND ALSO FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF T HE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF MULTIPLAN (INDIA) LTD., 38 ITD 320 AND MADH YA PRADESH HIGH COURT IN LATE TUKOJIRAO HOLKAR 223 ITR 480 (MP), WE DISMISS THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEES FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION. 3. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEES ARE DISMISSED. DECISION PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 5 TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2011. SD/- SD/- (SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV) (G. S. PANNU) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEM BER PUNE, DATED:5 TH AUGUST, 2011 B COPY TO:- 1) ASSESSEE 2) DEPARTMENT 3) THE CIT (A)-II THANE 4) CIT-II THANE 5) DR, A BENCH, ITAT, PUNE. 6) GUARD FILE BY ORDER TRUE COPY ASST. REGISTRAR, I.T.A.T., PUNE 3