Shri Kaushal Kumar Jain, Indore V. The CIT-II, Indore

ITA 50/IND/2011

• Counselvise Citation: 5022714 RSA 2011
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 17-11-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: Not Allotted
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 25-05-2011
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: KESHAVE SAXENA

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI JOGINDER SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI R.C. SHARMA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.50/IND/2011 AY: 2006-07 KAUSHAL KUMAR JAIN PROP. RAHUL ENTERPRISES, INDORE PAN AETPJ 3620 E ..APPELLANT V/S. CIT-II, INDORE ..RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : NONE DEPARTMENT BY : SHRI KESHAVE SAXENA, CIT/DR DATE OF HEARING : 17.11.2011 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 17.11.2011 ORDER PER JOGINDER SINGH THIS APPEAL IS BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT-II, INDORE, DATED 24.3.2011 ON THE GROUNDS AS DETAILED IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEALS. DURING HEARING OF THIS APPEAL, NOBODY IS PRESENT FOR THE ASSESSEE WHE REAS SHRI KESHAVE SAXENA, LD. CIT/DR IS PRESENT FOR THE REVENUE. 2. THIS APPEAL WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ON 25.5.20 11 AS IS EVIDENT FROM ORDER SHEET ENTRY OF EVEN DATE. THIS APPEAL WAS FIXED FOR HEARING FOR TODAY I.E. 17.11.2011. THE RPAD NOTICE WAS SENT BY THE REGISTRY AT THE ADD RESS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE IN FORM NO.36, WHICH WAS SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE A S IS EVIDENT FROM THE AD CARD AVAILABLE ON THE FILE. TODAY, THE ASSESSEE NEITHER PRESENTED HIMSELF NOR MOVED ANY ADJOURNMENT PETITION. IT SEEMS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED TO PURSUE HIS 2 APPEAL, THEREFORE, IT CANNOT BE KEPT PENDING ADJUDI CATION FOR INDEFINITE PERIOD. MERE FILING OF APPEAL IS NOT ENOUGH RATHER IT REQUIRES E FFECTIVE PROSECUTION ALSO. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO NOT FILED ANY INFORMATION WITH TH E REGISTRY FOR HIS NON-APPEARANCE. IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS LIABLE FOR DISMISSAL. OUR VIEW IS SUPPORTED BY THE FOLLOWING J UDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS: I) IN THE CASE OF CIT V. B.N. BHATTACHARGEE AND ANO THER, 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 APPE AL 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 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 PREPARATI ON 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 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 INHER ENT POWERS, TREATED THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE AS UNADMITTED IN VI EW OF THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 19 OF THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RULES, 1963. 3. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED FOR NON-PROSECUTION. SD/- SD/- (R.C. SHARMA) (JOGINDER SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 17.11.2011 COPY TO: APPELLANT/RESPONDENT/CIT/CIT(A)/DR/GUARD F ILE !VYAS!