SHRI BAL KRISHNA JOSHI, Indore V. THE ITO 1(1), Indore

ITA 608/IND/2013

• Counselvise Citation: 60822714 RSA 2013
• Duration Of Justice: 11 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-09-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 06-02-2017
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 11-10-2013
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R A VERMA

Judgement Text

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI P.K. BANSAL, AM AND SHRI MUKUL KR. SHRA WAT, JM ITA NO.608/IND/2013 A.Y. 2008-09 BAL KRISHNA JOSHI, INDORE PAN ABJPJ 0180 C ..APPELLANT V/S. ITO-1(1), INDORE ..RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY NONE REVENUE BY SHRI R.A. VERMA, SR. DR DATE OF HEARING 12.9.2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 12.9.2014 ORDER PER P.K. BANSAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER THIS APPEAL IS BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER DA TED 8.7.2013 PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A)-I, INDORE, ON THE GROUNDS AS DETAILED IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. DURING HEARING OF THIS APPEAL, N OBODY IS PRESENT FOR THE ASSESSEE WHEREAS SHRI R.A. VERMA, LD. SR. DR IS PRESENT FOR THE REVENUE. 2. THIS APPEAL WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ON 11.10.2 013 AS IS EVIDENT FROM ORDER SHEET ENTRY OF EVEN DATE. REGISTERED NOT ICE OF HEARING FOR 2 12.9.2014, SENT TO THE ASSESSEE, AT THE ADDRESS FUR NISHED BY THE ASSESSEE, WAS RETURNED BY THE POSTAL AUTHORITY BEIN G UNSERVED. TODAY I.E. 12.9.2014, AT THE TIME OF THE HEARING, THE ASS ESSEE NEITHER PRESENTED HIMSELF NOR MOVED ANY ADJOURNMENT PETITIO N. IT SEEMS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED TO PURSUE HIS APPEAL , THEREFORE, IT CANNOT BE KEPT PENDING ADJUDICATION FOR INDEFINITE PERIOD. IT WAS THE DUTY OF THE ASSESSEE TO MAKE NECESSARY ARRANGEMENTS FOR EFFECTI VE REPRESENTATION ON THE APPOINTED DATE. MERE FILING OF APPEAL IS NOT ENOUGH RATHER IT REQUIRES EFFECTIVE PROSECUTION ALSO. IN VIEW OF THE SE FACTS, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS LIABLE FOR DISMISSAL. 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 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 COMMUNICATION OR INFORMATION AS TO WHY THE REVENUE CHOSE TO REMAIN ABSENT ON DATE. THE TRIBUNAL ON THE BASI S OF INHERENT POWERS, TREATED THE APPEAL FILED BY THE RE VENUE AS UNADMITTED IN VIEW OF THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 19 OF THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RULES, 1963. 3. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED FOR NON-PROSECUTION. SD/- SD/- (MUKUL KR. SHRAWAT) (P.K. BANSAL) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 12.9.2014 COPY TO: APPELLANT/RESPONDENT/CIT/CIT(A)/DR/GUARD F ILE CPU