M/s RSS Enterprises, Bangalore V. ITO, Bangalore

ITA 635/BANG/2014

• Counselvise Citation: 63521114 RSA 2014
• Duration Of Justice: 10 month(s) 8 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-03-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 21-02-2017
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 12-05-2014
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: DR P K SRIHARI

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N.V. VASUDEVAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI JASON P. BOAZ, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 635/BANG/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10 M/S. R.S.S. ENTERPRISES, NO.22, IST FLOOR, 3 RD CROSS, 3 RD STAGE, BEML LAYOUT, PANCHASHEELA PARK, K.R. NAGAR, BANGALORE 560 098. PAN: BCCPS 7955R VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(4), BANGALORE. APPELLANT RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY : DR. P.K. SRIHARI, ADDL. CIT(DR) DATE OF HEARING : 05.03.2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 20.03.2015 O R D E R PER N.V. VASUDEVAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER WHEN THE APPEAL WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, ACKNOW LEDGE-CUM- NOTICE WAS GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE IN WHICH HEARING O F THE APPEAL FIXED ON 5.3.2015 WAS DULY ACKNOWLEDGED TO THE ASSESSEE. HO WEVER, NONE APPEARED FOR THE ASSESSEE AT THE TIME OF HEARING NO R ANY ADJOURNMENT PETITION SEEKING ADJOURNMENT OF THE CASE WAS FILED EITHER. THE ABOVE ITA NO. 635/BANG/2014 PAGE 2 OF 3 CONDUCT ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE SHOWS THAT IT I S NOT INTERESTED IN PROSECUTING THE APPEAL FILED BY IT. 2. CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND KEEPING IN VIEW THE PR OVISIONS OF RULE 19(2) OF THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RULES AS WERE CONSIDERED IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. MULTIPLAN INDIA LTD., (38 ITD 320)(DEL) WE TREAT THIS APPEAL AS UNADMITTED. SIMILAR VIEW HAS BEEN TAKEN BY THE HONBLE MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF ESTATE OF LATE TUKOJIRAO HOLKAR VS. CWT (223 ITR 480) WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN HELD AS UNDER: 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 REFE RENCE, THE COURT IS NOT BOUND TO ANSWER THE REFERENCE. 3. THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. B. BHATTACHARGEE & ANOTHER (118 ITR 461 AT PAGE 477-478) HELD THAT THE APPEAL DOES NOT MEAN, MERE FILING OF THE M EMO OF APPEAL BUT EFFECTIVELY PURSUING THE SAME. 4. FOLLOWING THE RATIO OF THE AFORESAID DECISIONS, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED IN LIMINE FOR NON-PROSECUTION. HOWEVER, IF THE ASSESSEE THROUGH PROPER APPLICATION CAN SATISFY THE TRIBUNAL THE REASONS FOR SUCH NON-APPEARANCE ON THE APPOINTED DATE, THE TRIBUNAL, AT ITS DISCRETION, MAY CONSIDER RECALL OF THIS ORDER. ITA NO. 635/BANG/2014 PAGE 3 OF 3 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED . PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 20 TH DAY OF MARCH , 2015 . SD/- SD/- ( JASON P. BOAZ ) ( N.V. VASUDEVA N ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBE R BANGALORE, DATED, THE 20 TH MARCH , 2015 . /D S/ COPY TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT, BANGALORE. 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR / SENIOR PRIVATE SECRETARY ITAT, BANGALORE.