SHRI RAMESHWAR KHATI, Indore V. THE ITO 3(3), Indore

ITA 669/IND/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2163 (ITAT-INDORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 5 month(s) 18 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 04-12-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: Not Allotted
• Next Hearing Date: 14-06-2017
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 16-06-2016
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: K G GOYAL

Judgement Text

RAMESHWAR KHATRI ITA NO. 669/IND/2016 RAMPRASAD KHATRI ITA 670/IND/2016 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNA L INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, HONBLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH BORAD, HONBLE ACCOUNTANT MEM BER 1. ITA NO. 669/IND/2016 A.Y. 2010-11 2. ITA NO.670/IND/2016 A.Y. 2010-11 1. SHRI RAMESHWAR KHATI INDORE PAN ALLPC 5856A 2. SHRI RAMPRASAD KHATI INDORE PAN ALLPC 5856A ::: APPELLANTS VS INCOME TAX OFFICER 3(3) INDORE ::: RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY NONE RESPONDENT BY SHRI K.G. GOYAL DATE OF HEARING 4.12.2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 4.12.2017 O R D E R PER SHRI MANISH BORAD, AM THESE APPEALS FILED BY THE ABOVE ASSESSEES EMANATE FROM THE DIFFERENT ORDERS OF THE LEARNED CIT( A)-I, INDORE, DATED 19.2.2016. RAMESHWAR KHATRI ITA NO. 669/IND/2016 RAMPRASAD KHATRI ITA 670/IND/2016 2 2. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, NONE IS PRESENT FOR THE ASSESSEE WHEREAS SHRI K.G. GOYAL, LEARNED SR. DR IS PRESENT FOR THE REVENUE. 3. THESE APPEALS WERE FILED BY DIFFERENT ASSESSEES. TH ESE APPEALS WERE FIXED FOR HEARING ON DIFFERENT DATES BUT O N ALL THE DATES THE ASSESSEE TOOK ADJOURNMENT ON DIFFERENT GROUNDS. FINALLY, THESE APPEALS WERE FIXED FOR HEARING ON 4.12.2017 ON WHICH DATE ALSO THERE WAS NO REPRESENTATIO N ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, SHRI K.G. GOYAL, LEARNED SENIOR DR WAS PRESENT FOR THE REVENUE. 3. FROM THE ABOVE CONDUCT OF THE ASSESSE, IT SEEMS TH AT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED IN PURSUING THE APPEALS . IT WAS THE DUTY OF THE ASSESSEE TO MAKE NECESSARY ARRANGEMENTS FOR EFFECTIVE REPRESENTATION ON THE APPOIN TED DATE. MERE FILING OF APPEAL IS NOT ENOUGH RATHER IT REQU IRES EFFECTIVE PROSECUTION ALSO. IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS, W E ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE LIABLE FOR RAMESHWAR KHATRI ITA NO. 669/IND/2016 RAMPRASAD KHATRI ITA 670/IND/2016 3 DISMISSAL. OUR VIEW IS SUPPORTED BY THE FOLLOWING JU DICIAL 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 TUKOJIRAOHOLKAR 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 TAKING 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 THE TRIBUNAL, WHICH WAS FIXED FOR HEARING. BUT ON THE DATE OF HEARING, NOBODY REPRESENTED THE REVENUE/APPELLANT NOR ANY COMMUNICATION RAMESHWAR KHATRI ITA NO. 669/IND/2016 RAMPRASAD KHATRI ITA 670/IND/2016 4 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. 3. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED FOR NON-PROSECUTION. PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 4 TH DECEMBER, 2017. SD/- SD/- (KUL BHARAT) (MANISH BORAD) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER 4 TH DECEMBER, 2017