M/s Narayan Niryat (I) P Ltd, V. The ACIT 5 (1),

ITA 500/IND/2008

• Counselvise Citation: [2010] 136 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2734 (ITAT-INDORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 7 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-07-2010
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 22-07-2010
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 11-12-2008
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI JOGINDER SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B.R. KAUSHIK, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.500/IND/2008 AY: 2005-06 NARAYAN NIRYAT (I) PVT. LTD. PAN AABCN 4487 E) C/O P.D. NAGAR & CO. (CA), 403, CITY PLAZA, 564, M.G. ROAD, INDORE ..APPELLANT V/S. ACIT-5(1), INDORE ..RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : NONE DEPARTMENT BY : SHRI MANOJ KUMAR, SR. DR ORDER PER JOGINDER SINGH, JM THIS APPEAL IS BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A)-II, INDORE, DATED 26.8.2008 FOR THE AY 2005-06 ON THE G ROUNDS AS DETAILED IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. DURING HEARING OF THIS AP PEAL, NOBODY IS PRESENT FOR THE ASSESSEE WHEREAS SHRI MANOJ KUMAR, L D. SR. DR IS PRESENT FOR THE REVENUE. 2 THIS APPEAL WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ON 11.12.201 0 AS IS EVIDENT FROM ORDER SHEET ENTRY OF EVEN DATE. EARLIER, THE A PPEAL WAS FIXED FOR HEARING FOR 28.5.2010 AND THE SAME WAS ADJOURNED TO 22.7.2010 AT THE WRITTEN REQUEST OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE . THE ASSESSEE NEITHER PRESENTED ITSELF NOR MOVED ANY ADJOURNMENT PETITION. IT SEEMS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED TO PURSUE ITS APPEAL, TH EREFORE, IT CANNOT BE KEPT PENDING ADJUDICATION FOR INDEFINITE PERIOD. MER E FILING OF APPEAL IS NOT ENOUGH RATHER IT REQUIRES EFFECTIVE PROSECUTION ALSO. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO NOT FILED ANY INFORMATION WITH THE REGISTR Y FOR ITS NON- APPEARANCE. IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS, WE ARE OF THE V IEW THAT THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS LIABLE FOR DISMISSAL. OUR VIEW I S SUPPORTED BY THE FOLLOWING JUDICIAL 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 APPE AL BUT EFFECTIVELY PURSUING IT. II) IN THE CASE OF ESTATE OF LATE TUKOJIRAO HOLKAR V. CW T, 223 ITR 480 (M.P.) WHILE DISMISSING THE REFERENCE MADE AT THE INSTANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IN DEFAULT MADE FOLLOWING OBSERVATION IN THEIR ORDER: 3 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 HEAR ING 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 COMMUNICA TION FOR ADJOURNMENT WAS RECEIVED. THERE WAS NO COMMUNIC ATION OR INFORMATION AS TO WHY THE REVENUE CHOSE TO REMAI N ABSENT ON DATE. THE TRIBUNAL ON THE BASIS OF INHERENT POW ERS, TREATED THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE AS UNADMITT ED IN VIEW OF THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 19 OF THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RULES, 1963. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED FOR NON-PROSECUTION. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT IN THE PRESENCE OF LEARNED SR. DR ON 22.7.2010. (B.R. KAUSHIK) (JOGINDER SINGH) (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 22.7.2010 COPY TO: APPELLANT/RESPONDENT/CIT/CIT(A)/DR/GUARD F ILE !VYAS!