Dawoodi Bohra Masjid & Kabrastan, Baroda V. The Income tax Officer,Ward-5(1), Baroda

ITA 49/AHD/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 60233 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 3 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-04-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 04-04-2012
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 06-01-2010
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ILAVARASI

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, C BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI A. K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. NO.49 / AHD/2010 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07) DAWOODI BOHRA MASJID & KABRISTAN, BOHRA BAZAR, AT & POST, KAWANT, DISTT. BARODA VS. ITO, WARD 5(1), BARODA PAN/GIR NO. : AAATD8592J (APPELLANT) .. (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: NONE RESPONDENT BY: MS. ILAVARASI, SR. DR DATE OF HEARING: 04.04.2012 OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 13 .04.2012 O R D E R PER SHRI KUL BHARAT, JM:- THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN DIRECTED AGAI NST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) V, BARODA DATED 30.10.2009 FOR THE ASSES SMENT YEAR 2006-07. NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE APPO INTED DATE OF HEARING IN SPITE OF THE NOTICE SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE WELL IN TIME AS PER THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT AVAILABLE ON RECORD. NO APPLICATIO N FOR ADJOURNMENT HAS BEEN RECEIVED FROM THE ASSESSEE. UNDER THESE C IRCUMSTANCES, IT IS INFERRED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED IN PUR SUING HIS APPEAL AND HENCE, THE SAME IS LIABLE TO BE DISMISSED FOR NON P ROSECUTION. IN OUR ABOVE VIEW, WE FIND SUPPORT FROM THE FOLLOWING DECI SIONS:- I.T.A.NO.49 /AHD/2010 2 IN THE CASE OF CIT VS B.N. BHATTACHARGEE AND ANOTHE R, REPORTED IN 118 ITR 461 (RELEVANT PAGES 477 AND 478) WHEREIN TH EIR LORDSHIPS HAVE HELD THAT THE APPEAL DOES NOT MEAN MERELY FIL ING OF THE APPEAL BUT EFFECTIVELY PURSUING IT. IN THE CASE OF ESTATE OF LATE TUKOJIRAO HOLKAR VS C IT 223 ITR 480 (M.P.) WHILE DISMISSING THE REFERENCE MADE AT THE I NSTANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IN DEFAULT MADE FOLLOWING OBSERVATION IN T HEIR ORDER:- IF THE PARTY, AT WHOSE INSTANCE THE REFERENCE IS M ADE, FAILS TO APPEAR AT THE HEARING, OR FAILS IN TAKING STEPS FOR PREPARATION OF THE PAPER BOOKS SO AS TO ENABLE HEARING OF THE REFERENC E, THE COURT IS NOT BOUND TO ANSWER THE REFERENCE. IN THE CASE OF CIT VS MULTIPLAN INDIA LIMITED; 38 ITD 320 (DEL), THE APPEAL WAS FILED BY THE REVENUE BEFORE THE TRIB UNAL, WHICH WAS FIXED FOR HEARING. BUT ON THE DATE OF HEARING, NOB ODY REPRESENTED THE REVENUE/APPELLANT NOR ANY COMMUNICATION FOR ADJ OURNMENT WAS RECEIVED. THERE WAS NO COMMUNICATION OR INFORMATIO N AS TO WHY THE REVENUE CHOSE TO REMAIN ABSENT ON DATE. THE TR IBUNAL 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. 2. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE STANDS DISMISSED. 3. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE DATE M ENTIONED HEREINABOVE. SD./- SD./- (A. K. GARODIA) (KUL BHARAT) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER SP I.T.A.NO.49 /AHD/2010 3 COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. THE APPLICANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT CONCERNED 4. THE LD. CIT (APPEALS) 5. THE DR, AHMEDABAD BY ORDER 6. THE GUARD FILE AR,ITAT,AHMEDABAD 1. DATE OF DICTATION12/4 2. DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER12/4.OTHER MEMBER 3. DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR. P .S./P.S. 4. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE THE D ICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT 13/4 5. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE SR. P.S./P.S.13/4 6. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK 13/4/12 7. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK .. 8. THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE ASSISTANT RE GISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER . 9. DATE OF DESPATCH OF THE ORDER. .