Smt. Manorama Devi Agrawal, Indore V. The ITO 3(3), Indore

ITA 511/IND/2013

• Counselvise Citation: 51122714 RSA 2013
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 11 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 08-06-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 01-07-2013
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R A VERMA

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 ITA NO. 511/IND/2013 A.Y. 2008-09 SMT. MANORAMA DEVI AGRAWAL INDORE PAN AGUPA 5295K ::: APPELLANT VS INCOME TAX OFFICER 3(3), INDORE ::: RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY NONE RESPONDENT BY SHRI R.A. VERMA DATE OF HEARING 8.6. 2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 8.6. 2015 O R D E R PER SHRI B.C. MEENA, AM THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE EMANATES FROM THE ORDER DATED 22.3.2013 OF THE LEARNED CIT(A)-III, BARODA, 2 HAVING CONCURRENT JURISDICTION OVER THE CHARGE OF CIT (A)-I, INDORE. 2. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, NONE IS PRESENT FOR THE ASSESSEE WHEREAS SHRI R.A. VERMA, LD. SR. DR IS PRESENT FOR TH E REVENUE. 3. THIS APPEAL WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ON 1.7.2013. REGISTERED NOTICE FOR HEARING OF THE APPEAL ON 10.9.20 14 WAS SENT TO THE ASSESSEE AT THE ADDRESS FURNISHED BY TH E ASSESSE. ON THE DATE OF HEARING I.E. 10.9.2014 THE LE ARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE MOVED AN APPLICATION FOR ADJOURNMENT. ACCEPTING THE APPLICATION OF THE ASSESSE , THE CASE WAS ADJOURNED SINE DIE. THEREAFTER, ANOTHER NOTICE FIXING THE DATE FOR HEARING ON 9.4.2015 WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSE. ON THIS DATE ALSO THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE FILED AN APPLICATION FOR ADJOURNMENT. THE RE QUEST FOR ADJOURNMENT WAS ACCEPTED BY THE BENCH BY FIXING T HE NEXT DATE OF HEARING ON 8.6.2015 AND IT WAS PRONOUNCED IN 3 THE OPEN COURT IN THE PRESENCE OF THE LEARNED COUNSE L FOR THE ASSESSE. ON 8.6.2015 NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSE. SHRI R.A. VERMA, LEARNED SENIOR DR WAS PRESEN T FOR THE REVENUE. 3. FROM THE ABOVE CONDUCT OF THE ASSESSE, IT SEEMS TH AT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED IN PURSUING HER APPEAL. IT WAS THE DUTY OF THE ASSESSEE TO MAKE NECESSARY ARRANGEMENTS FOR EFFECTIVE REPRESENTATION ON THE APPOIN TED DATE. MERE FILING OF APPEAL IS NOT ENOUGH RATHER IT REQU IRES EFFECTIVE PROSECUTION ALSO. IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS, W E ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS LIABLE FOR 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: 4 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 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. 5 3. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED FOR NON-PROSECUTION. PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 8 TH JUNE, 2015 SD SD (D.T. GARASIA) (B.C. MEENA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED - 8.6.2015 DN/-