SMT SUDHA MANOHAR GUPTA, Nagpur V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7(1), Nagpur

ITA 84/NAG/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 134 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1669 (ITAT-NAGPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 5 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-08-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 19-02-2014
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC BENCH, NAGPUR BEFORE SHRI MUKUL K. SHRAWAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 84/NAG./2014 ( ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008-09 ) SMT. SUDHA MANOHAR GUPTA PROP. HARIOM TYRES BYPASS ROAD, UMRED 441 203 DISTRICT NAGPUR PAN AEMPG9024N APPELLANT V/S INCOME TAX OFFICER WAD-7(1), HARIOM TYRES BYPASS ROAD, UMRED 441 203 DISTRICT NAGPUR .... RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : NONE REVENUE BY : SHRI NARENDRA KANE DATE OF HEARING 20.07.2015 DATE OF ORDER 18.08.20 15 O R D E R THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS EMANATING FROM THE ORDER DATED 25 TH NOVEMBER 2013, PASSED BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS)-II, NAGPUR, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09, O N THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL:- 1. THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION AMOUNT ING TO ` 2,00,000, AGAINST SALE OF LAND. SMT. SUDHA MANOHAR GUPTA 2 2. WHEN THE CASE WAS CALLED FOR HEARING, NEITHER THE ASS ESSEE NOR ANY OF ITS AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVES APPEARED BEFORE US. THERE IS NO APPLICATION SEEKING ADJOURNMENT EITHER. UNDER THESE CI RCUMSTANCES, WE COME TO A CONCLUSION THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTER ESTED IN PROSECUTING HER APPEAL. 3. THE HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN M/S. CHEMIPO L V/S UNION OF INDIA & ORS., IN CENTRAL EXCISE APPEAL NO.62 OF 2009, VI DE JUDGMENT DATED 17 TH SEPTEMBER 2009, WHILE CONSIDERING THE JUDGMENTS OF H ON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN CIT V/S S. CHENIAPPA MUDALIAR, AIR 1969 SC 1068, SUNDERLAL MANNALAL V/S NANDRAMDAS DWARKADAS, AIR 1958 M P 260, AND OTHER JUDGMENTS, OBSERVED AS FOLLOWS:- 6. WE CANNOT ALTOGETHER LOSE SIGHT OF THE RULE THAT EVERY COURT OR TRIBUNAL HAS AN INHERENT POWER TO DISMISS A PROCEEDING FOR NON-PROSECUTION WHEN THE PETITION / APPELLANT BEFORE IT DOE S NOT WISH TO PROSECUTE THE PROCEEDINGS. IN SUCH A SITUATION, UNLESS THE STATUTE CLEARLY REQUIRES THE COURT OR TRIBUNAL TO HEAR T HE APPEAL / PROCEEDING AND DECIDE IT ON MERITS, IT CAN DIS MISS THE APPEAL / PROCEEDING FOR. THE DELHI BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN CIT V/S M/S. MULTIP LAN INDIA PVT. LTD. [1991] 38 ITD 320 (DEL.), HAS HELD THAT IN A SIMILAR CIRCUMSTANCES, THE APPEAL MAY BE DISMISSED AS UNADMITTED. 4. APPLYING THE AFORESAID PROPOSITIONS LAID DOWN BY THE HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT AS WELL AS THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL CITED SUPRA, WE TREAT THIS APPEAL AS UNADMITTED AND HOLD T HE SAME AS LIABLE TO BE DISMISSED AS SUCH. SMT. SUDHA MANOHAR GUPTA 3 5. IN THE RESULT, ASSESSEES APPEAL STANDS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 18 TH AUGUST 2015 SD/ - MUKUL K. SHRAWAT JUDICIAL MEMBER NAGPUR, DATED: 18 TH AUGUST 2015 COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : (1) THE ASSESSEE; (2) THE REVENUE; (3) THE CIT(A); (4) THE CIT, NAGPUR CITY CONCERNED; (5) THE DR, ITAT, NAGPUR; (6) GUARD FILE. TRUE COPY BY ORDER PRADEEP J. CHOWDHURY SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY A SSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, NAGPUR