Kalyan Babu, Hyderabad V. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-6(1), Hyderabad

ITA 558/Hyd/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 125 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6470 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-07-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 26-03-2018
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: B K VISHNU PRIYA
• Assessee Lawyers: N O N E

Judgement Text

IT A NO 558 OF 2018 KALYAN BABU HYDERABAD. PAGE 1 OF 2 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD A BENCH, HYDERABAD BEFORE SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.558/HYD/2018 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2013-14) SHRI KALYAN BABU ADUSUMILLI HYDERABAD PAN: ADNPA9801D VS ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 6(1) HYDERABAD (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) FOR ASSESSEE : N O N E FOR REVENUE : SMT. B.K.VISHNU PRIYA, DR O R D E R PER SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI, J.M. THIS IS ASSESSEES APPEAL FOR THE A.Y 2013-14 AGAIN ST THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT (A)-6, HYDERABAD, DA TED 25.01.2018. THE REGISTRY, ON SCRUTINY OF THE APPEAL PAPERS, OBS ERVED THAT THERE ARE DEFECTS IN FORM NO.36 FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. A DEFECT MEMO ALONG WITH NOTICE OF HEARING WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSE SSEE BY REGISTERED POST WITH ACKNOWLEDGMENT DUE. HOWEVER, T HE NOTICE HAS BEEN RETURNED TO THE REGISTRY WITH THE COMMENTS NO T CLAIMED, RETURNED TO SENDER. WHEN THE APPEAL CAME UP FOR HE ARING ON 13.07.2018, WE NOTICED THAT THE NOTICE HAS COME BAC K AND THE ADDRESS ON THE NOTICE IS THE ADDRESS GIVEN IN FORM NO.36. SINCE THE NOTICE COULD NOT BE SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE DUE TO T HE ASSESSEE NOT GIVING THE CORRECT ADDRESS AND NONE APPEARED FOR TH E ASSESSEE, WE ARE CONSTRAINED TO DISMISS THIS APPEAL FOR NON-PROS ECUTION. DATE OF HEARING: 13.07.2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 27.07.2018 IT A NO 558 OF 2018 KALYAN BABU HYDERABAD. PAGE 2 OF 2 2. IT HAS BEEN HELD BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF B.N. BHTTACHARGEE & ANR., 118 ITR 461 THAT APPEAL DOES NOT MEAN ONLY FILING OF MEMO OF APPEAL BUT ALSO PURSUIN G IT EFFECTIVELY. IN CASES WHERE THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT WANT TO PURSUE THE APPEAL, COURT/TRIBUNAL HAVE INHERENT POWER TO DISMISS THE A PPEAL FOR NON- PROSECUTION AS HELD BY HONBLE HIGH COURT OF MUMBAI IN THE CASE OF M/S CHEMIPOL VS. UNION OF INDIA IN EXCISE APPEAL NO . 62 OF 2009. THEREFORE, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE ABOVE DECISIO N AND ALSO OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF MULTIPLAN (INDIA) LTD., (38 ITD 320) AND MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT IN LATE TUKOJIRAO HOLKAR (223 ITR 480), WE DISMISS THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE FOR WAN T OF PROSECUTION. 3. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DIS MISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 27 TH JULY, 2018. SD/- SD/- (S.RIFAUR RAHMAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (P. MADHAVI DEVI) JUDICIAL MEMBER HYDERABAD, DATED 27 TH JULY 2018. VINODAN/SPS COPY TO: 1 SHRI KALYAN BABU ADUSUMILLI, 8-3-678/42/1D-2 EAST VILLA, FLAT NO.302, NAVODAYA COLONY, YELLAREDDYGUDA, HYDERABAD 500007 2 ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 16(1), IT TOWERS, AC GUARDS, HYDERABAD 3 CIT (A)-6 HYDERABAD 4 PR. CIT 6 HYDERABAD 5 THE DR, ITAT HYDERABAD 6 GUARD FILE BY ORDER