Resource Technologies Pvt.Ltd., Hyd, Hyderabad V. ITO, Ward-3(2), Hyd, Hyderabad

ITA 830/HYD/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6108 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 22 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-10-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 02-06-2016
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: K J RAO

Judgement Text

THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH B, HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI P. MADHAVI DEVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 830/HYD/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09 RESOURCE TECHNOLOGIES P. LTD., HYDERABAD. PAN AABCR 1334E VS. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD 3(2), HYDERABAD. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : NONE REVENUE BY : SHRI K.J. RAO DATE OF HEARING : 24-10-2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 24-10-2016 O R D E R PER S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, A.M.: THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST O RDER DATED 01/01/2016 OF LD. CIT(A) - 10, HYDERABAD FOR AY 200 8-09. 2. WHEN THIS APPEAL CAME FOR HEARING TODAY I.E. ON 24/10/2016, NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE NOR THERE W AS ANY REQUEST FOR ADJOURNMENT. ON 03/10/2016, SMT. KAVITHA APPEARED AND SOUGHT ADJOURNMENT. IT WAS BROUGHT TO HER NOTICE THAT POWE R OF ATTORNEY WAS NOT FILED. TILL NOW, NO ACTION HAS BEEN TAKEN TO FI LE THE SAME AND NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE US ON 24/ 10/2016. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE AS SESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED IN PROSECUTING ITS APPEAL. IT HAS BEE N HELD BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF B.N. BHTTAC HARGEE & ANR., 118 ITR 461 THAT APPEAL DOES NOT MEAN ONLY F ILING OF MEMO OF APPEAL BUT ALSO PURSUING IT EFFECTIVELY. IN CASES WHERE THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT WANT TO PURSUE THE APPEAL, COURT/TRIBUNAL HAVE INHERENT POWER TO DISMISS THE APPEAL FOR NON PROSECUTION AS HELD BY HONBLE 2 ITA NO. 830 /HYD/2016 RESOURCE TECHNOLOGIES P. LTD. HIGH COURT OF MUMBAI IN THE CASE OF M/S CHEMIPOL VS . UNION OF INDIA IN EXCISE APPEAL NO. 62 OF 2009. THEREFORE, RESPECT FULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF MULTIPLAN ( INDIA) LTD., (38 ITD 320) AND MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT IN LATE TUKOJIRA O HOLKAR (223 ITR 480), WE DISMISS THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE FO R 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 IT 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 24 TH OCTOBER, 2016. SD/- SD/- (P. MADHAVI DEVI) (S. RIFAUR RAHMAN) JUDICIAL MEMBER AC COUNTANT MEMBER HYDERABAD, DATED: 24 TH OCTOBER, 2016 KV COPY TO:- 1) RESOURCE TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD., C/O PRATURI AND SRIRAM, 3-6-220, 1 ST FLOOR, STREET NO. 15, HIMAYAT NAGAR, HYDERABAD 500 029. 2) ACIT, CIRCLE 8(1), BLOCK NO8C, INCOME TAX T OWERS,AC GUARDS, HYDERABAD. 3) CIT(A) 10,, HYDERABAD 4) CIT (IT & TP), HYDERABAD 5) THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, I.T.A.T., H YDERABAD. 6) GUARD FILE 3 ITA NO. 830 /HYD/2016 RESOURCE TECHNOLOGIES P. LTD. DESCRIPTION DATE INTLS 1. DRAFT DICTATED ON SR.P.S. 2. DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR SR.P.S 3 DRAFT PROPOSED & PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER AM 4 DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED BY SECOND MEMBER VP 5 APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.P.S./PS SR.P.S. 6. KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT ON SR.P S. 7. FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK SR.P.S. 8 DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK 9 DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER