Shri Dilip Kumar Dodiya, Tarana V. The ITO, Ujjain

ITA 521/IND/2009

• Counselvise Citation: [2009] 115 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2489 (ITAT-INDORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 02-12-2009
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 13-11-2009
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: APARNA KARAN

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, INDORE SMC BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI JOGINDER SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.521/IND/2009 AY: 2005-06 DILIP KUMAR DODIYA, PROP. M/S. MAHESHWARI SWEETS, BUS STAND, TARANA DISTT. UJJAIN (MP) (PAN AHTPD 9790 J) ..APPELLANT V/S. ITO, WARD-1(2), UJJAIN ..RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : NONE DEPARTMENT BY : SMT. APARNA KARAN, SR. DR ORDER PER JOGINDER SINGH, JM THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A)- UJJAIN, DATED 15.9.2009 FOR THE AY 2005-06 ON THE G ROUNDS AS DETAILED IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. DURING HEARING OF THIS APPEAL, N OBODY IS PRESENT FOR THE ASSESSEE WHEREAS SMT. APARNA KARAN, LD. SR. DR IS P RESENT FOR THE REVENUE. THIS APPEAL WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ON 13.11.200 9 AS IS EVIDENT FROM ORDER SHEET ENTRY. THE APPEAL WAS FIXED FOR TODAY I .E. 2.12.2009 FOR WHICH REGD. AD NOTICE WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE ON 17.11 .2009 WHICH WAS DULY RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE AS IS EVIDENT FROM POSTAL ACKNOWLEDGEMENT AVAILABLE ON THE FILE. THE ASSESSEE NEITHER PRESENTED HIMSELF NOR MOVED ANY 2 ADJOURNMENT PETITION. IT SEEMS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED TO PURSUE ITS APPEAL, THEREFORE, IT CANNOT BE KEPT PENDING AD JUDICATION FOR INDEFINITE PERIOD. IN VIEW OF THIS FACT, I AM OF THE VIEW THAT THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS LIABLE FOR DISMISSAL. MY VIEW IS SUPPORTED BY THE F OLLOWING 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. C WT, 223 ITR 480 (M.P.) WHILE DISMISSING THE REFERENCE MADE AT T HE INSTANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IN DEFAULT MADE FOLLOWING OBSERVATION IN THEIR 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 REFE RENCE, 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, WH ICH WAS FIXED FOR HEARING. BUT ON THE DATE OF HEARING, NOBODY RE PRESENTED THE REVENUE/APPELLANT NOR ANY COMMUNICATION FOR ADJOURN MENT 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 FI LED BY THE REVENUE AS UNADMITTED 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. 3 ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT IN THE PRESENCE OF LEARNED DR ON 2.12.2009. (JOGINDER SINGH) JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 2.12.2009 !VYAS! COPY TO: APPELLANT/RESPONDENT/CIT/CIT(A)/DR