Majety Madhavi, Vijayawada, Vijayawada V. DCIT, Central Circle-1(3), Hyderabad, Hyderabad

ITA 675/HYD/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 126 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2393 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 10 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 16-03-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 17-04-2017
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: N SWAPNA
• Section: 54B

Judgement Text

THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH B, HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI D. MANMOHAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 675/HYD/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 MAJETY MADHAVI, VIJAYAWADA PAN ACEPM 0659 D VS. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME- TAX, CIRCLE 1(3), HYDERABAD. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : NONE REVENUE BY : SMT. N. SWAPNA DATE OF HEARING : 13-03-2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 16-03-2018 O R D E R PER S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, A.M.: THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST T HE ORDER DATED 17/11/ 2016 OF CIT(A) - 11, HYDERABAD, FOR AY 2009-10. 2. ON PERUSAL OF RECORD, WE FIND THAT INITIALLY THE CASE WAS POSTED FOR HEARING ON 21/08/2017 AND SINCE THE BENCH DID N OT FUNCTION ON 21/08/2017, THE CASE WAS ADJOURNED TO 21/11/2017. N ONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE ON 21/11/2017. SINCE THER E WAS NO PROOF OF SERVICE OF NOTICE FOR HEARING ON THE SAID DATE ON 2 1/11/2017, THE REGISTRY WAS DIRECTED TO POST THE CASE ON 13/03/201 8 AND NOTICE OF HEARING FOR THIS DATE MAY BE SENT THROUGH RPAD. THO UGH THE PROOF OF RECEIVING THE NOTICE FOR HEARING OF APPEAL ON 13/03 /2018 BY THE ASSESSEE WAS ON RECORD VIDE ACKNOWLEDGMENT CARD, N ONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE NOR THERE WAS ANY REQUEST FOR ADJOURNMENT OF THE CASE ON 13/03/2018. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED IN PROSECUTING ITS APPEAL. IT HAS BEEN HELD BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE C ASE OF B.N. BHTTACHARGEE & ANR., 118 ITR 461 THAT APPEAL DOES NOT MEAN 2 ITA NO. 675 /HYD/2017 MAJETI MADHAVI ONLY FILING OF MEMO OF APPEAL BUT ALSO PURSUING I T EFFECTIVELY. IN CASES WHERE THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT WANT TO PURSUE TH E 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 DECISION OF T HE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF MULTIPLAN (INDIA) LTD., (38 ITD 320) AND MA DHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT IN LATE TUKOJIRAO HOLKAR (223 ITR 480), WE DI SMISS THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION. 3. EVEN ON MERITS, THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN NIL INC OME UNDER THE HEAD LTCG IN THE COMPUTATION CLAIMING EXEMPTION OF RS. 2,73,495/- U/S 54B STATING THAT SHE HAD INVESTED THAT AMOUNT I N NEW AGRICULTURAL LAND. HOWEVER, ON PERUSAL OF BALANCE SHEET, THE AO OBSERVED THAT THERE WAS NO NEW AGRICULTURAL LAND AND MOREOVER, TH E INDEXATION WAS SHOWN AS 582/582. SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FURNIS HED ANY EVIDENCE TO PROVE THE SAID LAND WAS USED FOR AGRICU LTURAL PURPOSES BEFORE ITS TRANSFER AND SHE DID NOT PURCHASE ANY NE W AGRICULTURAL LAND WITHIN TWO YEARS, THE AO DENIED THE ASSESSEES CLAI M OF EXEMPTION U/S 54B. ON APPEAL, THE CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF AO. 4. SINCE, THERE IS NO REPRESENTATION FROM THE ASSESSEE AND THE FINDINGS OF THE CIT(A)) ARE UNCONTROVERTED, WE UPH OLD THE ORDER OF CIT(A)) AND DISMISS THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 16 TH MARCH, 2018. SD/- SD/- (D. MANMOHAN) (S. RIFAUR RAHMAN) VICE PRESIDENT ACC OUNTANT MEMBER HYDERABAD, DATED: 16 TH MARCH, 2018. KV 3 ITA NO. 675 /HYD/2017 MAJETI MADHAVI COPY TO:- 1) MAJETI MADHAVI, W/O MAJETI SURENDRANATH, 11 -25-15, KT ROAD, VIJAYAWADA - 5200 001. 2) DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(3),HYD. 3) CIT(A) 11, , HYD. 4) PR. CIT (CENTRAL), HYD. 5) THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, I.T.A.T., H YDERABAD. 6) GUARD FILE