SHRI RAJESH BAGGA, Indore V. The ITO Wd- 5(1), Indore

ITA 544/IND/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5735 (ITAT-INDORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 6 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-02-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 19-08-2014
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R A VERMA

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, INDORE BENCH, INDORE (SINGLE MEMBER CASE) BEFORE SHRI D.T. GARASIA, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A.NO. 544/IND/2014 A.Y. : 2008-09 SHRI RAJESH BAGGA, ITO, WD. 5(1), INDORE. VS. INDORE APPELLANT RESPONDENT PAN NO. AGFPB0376B A PPELLANT S BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY : SHRI R.A.VERMA , DR O R D E R THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A)-II, INDORE, DATED 31.03.2014 FOR THE ASSE SSMENT YEAR 2008-09. DATE OF HEARING : 2 3 .02. 20 16 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 2 3 .02. 20 16 SHRI RAJESH BAGGA, INDORE VS. ITO, WD. 5(1), INDORE I.T.A.NO. 544/IND/2014 A.Y. 2008-09 2 2 2. DURING HEARING OF THIS APPEAL, NOBODY IS PRESEN T FOR THE ASSESSEE WHEREAS SHRI R.A. VERMA, LD. DR IS PRESENT FOR THE REVENUE. 3. THE APPEAL WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ON 19 .08.2014, AS IS EVIDENT FROM ORDER SHEET ENTRY OF EVEN DATE. REG ISTERED NOTICE FOR HEARING THE APPEAL FOR 14.10.2015, 14.12 .2015, 15.12.2015, 11.2.2016 AND 23.2.2016, WERE SENT TO T HE ASSESSEE, AT THE ADDRESS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE. NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE NOR ANY APPLICAT ION WAS RECEIVED ON THE ABOVE DATE. TODAY I.E. ON 23.02.201 6, AT THE TIME OF THE HEARING, THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT PRESENT. IT SEEMS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED TO PURSUE ITS A PPEALS, THEREFORE, IT CANNOT BE KEPT PENDING ADJUDICATION F OR INDEFINITE PERIOD. IT WAS THE DUTY OF THE ASSESSEE TO MAKE NEC ESSARY ARRANGEMENTS FOR EFFECTIVE REPRESENTATION ON THE AP POINTED DATE. MERE FILING OF APPEAL IS NOT ENOUGH RATHER IT REQUIRES EFFECTIVE PERSUASION ALSO. IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE LIABLE FO R DISMISSAL. SHRI RAJESH BAGGA, INDORE VS. ITO, WD. 5(1), INDORE I.T.A.NO. 544/IND/2014 A.Y. 2008-09 3 3 OUR VIEW IS 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 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 T AKING 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 T HE 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. SHRI RAJESH BAGGA, INDORE VS. ITO, WD. 5(1), INDORE I.T.A.NO. 544/IND/2014 A.Y. 2008-09 4 4 3. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED FOR NON-PROSECUTION. THIS ORDER HAS BEEN PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 23RD FEBRUARY, 2016. SD/- ( D.T.GARASIA) JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 23RD FEBRUARY, 2016. CPU* 23.2