Boda Padmaja, Hyd, Hyderabad V. ITO, Ward 9(1), Hyderabad, Hyderabad

ITA 719/HYD/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6533 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 08-06-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 07-06-2016
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 28-05-2015
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: M SITARAM

Judgement Text

THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH A, HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI D. MANMOHAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 719/HYD/2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 BODA PADMAJA, HYDERABAD. PAN AGMPB 6867 C VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 9(1), HYDERABAD. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : NONE REVENUE BY : SHRI M. SITARAM DATE OF HEARING : 08-06-2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 08-06-2016 O R D E R PER S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, A.M.: THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST T HE ORDER DATED 16/04/2015 OF LD. CIT(A)-VII, HYDERABAD FOR THE AY 2009-10. 2. ON PERUSAL OF RECORD, WE FIND THAT THIS CASE WAS ADJOURNED ON NUMBER OF OCCASIONS FROM 26/08/2015 TO 21/03/2016, IN PARTICULAR, ON THE REQUEST OF THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS NON-COMPLIAN CE BY THE ASSESSEE ON THE DATES OF HEARING OF APPEAL. WHEN TH IS APPEAL WAS POSTED FOR HEARING ON THE LAST OCCASION I.E. ON 07/ 06/2016, NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE NOR THERE WAS AN Y REQUEST FOR ADJOURNMENT. THE CASE WAS POSTED AGAIN ON 08/06/2016 TO GIVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO ASSESSEE TO PRESENT HER CASE. EVEN T ODAY, THERE WAS NO COMPLIANCE FROM THE ASSESSEE. IN THESE CIRCUMSTA NCES, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED IN PRO SECUTING ITS APPEAL. IT HAS BEEN HELD BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF B.N. BHTTACHARGEE & ANR., 118 ITR 461 THAT AP PEAL DOES NOT 2 ITA NO. 719 /HYD/2015 BODA PADMAJA MEAN ONLY FILING OF MEMO OF APPEAL BUT ALSO PURS UING 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 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. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE IS AT LIBERTY TO SEEK RE CALL OF THIS ORDER BY WAY OF FILING AN M.A., SHOWING SUFFICIENT REASONS, WHICH PREVENTED HER FOR ABSENCE ON THE SAID DATE OF HEARING OF THIS APP EAL. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 8 TH JUNE, 2016. SD/- SD/- (D. MANMOHAN) (S. RIFAUR RAHMAN) VICE PRESIDENT AC COUNTANT MEMBER HYDERABAD, DATED: 8 TH JUNE, 2016 KV COPY TO:- 1) SMT. BODA PADMAJA, C/O SHRI B. SHANTI KUMAR, ADVOCATE, 411, TARAMANDAL COMPLEX, 5-9-13, SAIFABAD, HYDERABAD. 2) ITO, WARD 9(1), 2-D, INCOME TAX TOWERS, AC GUARDS, HYDERABAD 3) CIT(A)-VII, HYDERABAD 4)CIT VII, HYDERABAD 5) THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, I.T.A.T., H YDERABAD.