Wincito Tek Solutions Pvt.Ltd., Hyd, Hyderabad V. ITO, Ward-3(2), Hyd, Hyderabad

ITA 83/HYD/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6364 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 01-08-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 01-08-2016
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 22-01-2016
• Court: TRIBUNAL

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES B, HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI D. MANMOHAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI B. RAMAKOTAIAH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 83/HYD/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011-12 M/S. WINCITO TEK SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD [PAN: AAACW7808D] VS INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(2), HYDERABAD (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) FOR ASSESSEE : NONE FOR REVENUE : SHRI A.G.V. PRASAD, DR DATE OF HEARING : 01-08-2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 01-08-2016 O R D E R PER B. RAMAKOTAIAH, A.M. : THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-5, HYDERABAD, DATED 30-10-2015. 2. IT IS NOTICED THAT THE APPEAL FILED IS DEFECTIVE AND A SSESSEE WAS ASKED TO RECTIFY THE DEFECTS AS NOTED IN THE ACKNOWL EDGMENT CUM NOTICE ISSUED ON 27-01-2016 ITSELF. ASSESSEE H AS PAID THE APPEAL FEE SHORT BY RS. 9,500/-. RESPONDENT IS NOT CO RRECTLY SHOWN IN THE APPEAL FORM. COLUMN NOS. 2, 3A, 3B, 5, 6, 9 & 11 ARE I.T.A. NO. 83/HYD/2016 :- 2 -: NOT CORRECTLY FILLED AND FORM NO. 36 IS SIGNED BY THE CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT AND NOT BY THE MANAGING DIRECTOR OR DIRECTOR A S SPECIFIED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT AND RULES TH EREON. ASSESSEE WAS ADVISED TO FILE REVISED FORM NO. 36. T HE CASE WAS POSTED FOR DISMISSAL ON 16-05-2016 AND WAS ADJOURNED TO 01-08- 2016. AS NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE NOR THE DEFECTS IN APPEAL ARE RECTIFIED, WE HAVE NO OPTION THAN TO D ISMISS THE APPEAL MEMO AS NOT MAINTAINABLE. 3. IT HAS BEEN HELD BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF B.N. BHTTACHARGEE & ANR., 118 ITR 46 1 THAT APPEAL DOES NOT MEAN ONLY FILING OF MEMO OF A PPEAL BUT ALSO PURSUING IT EFFECTIVELY. IN CASES WHERE THE A SSESSEE DOES NOT WANT TO PURSUE THE APPEAL, COURT/TRIBUNAL HAVE INHERENT POWER TO DISMISS THE APPEAL FOR NON PROSEC UTION 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 DECISIO N OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF MULTIPLAN (INDIA) LTD., (38 ITD 320) AND MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT IN LATE TUKOJIRAO HOL KAR (223 ITR 480), WE DISMISS THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESS EE FOR THE REASONS STATED ABOVE. 3.1. HOWEVER, ASSESSEE IS AT LIBERTY TO SEEK RECA LL OF THIS ORDER BY WAY OF FILING AN M.A., SHOWING SUFFICIENT REASONS AS TO WHY THE APPEAL MEMO COULD NOT BE RECTIFIED AND W HY ASSESSEE DID NOT REPRESENT WHEN POSTED. I.T.A. NO. 83/HYD/2016 :- 3 -: 4. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 1 ST AUGUST, 2016 SD/- SD/- (D. MANMOHAN) (B. RAMAKOTAIAH) VICE PRESIDENT ACCOUNTANT MEMB ER HYDERABAD, DATED 1 ST AUGUST, 2016 TNMM COPY TO : 1. M/S. WINCITO TEK SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD., 314, AMRUT HA VILLE, SOMAJIGUDA, RAJ BHAVAN ROAD, HYDERABAD. 2. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(2), HYDERABAD. 3. CIT (APPEALS)-5, HYDERABAD. 4. PR.CIT-5, HYDERABAD. 5. D.R. ITAT, HYDERABAD. 6. GUARD FILE.