Srinivas Reddy Gurram, R.R.Dist, R.R.Dist V. Addl.CIT, Range-9, Hyd, Hyderabad

ITA 916/HYD/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2695 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 03-08-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 03-08-2017
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 06-07-2015
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: L R AMJI RAO

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES B, HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI D. MANMOHAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 916/HYD/2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011-12 SRINIVAS REDDY GURRAM, HYDERABAD [PAN: ADEPG8220H] VS ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE-9, HYDERABAD (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) FOR ASSESSEE : NONE FOR REVENUE : SHRI L. RAMJI RAO, DR DATE OF HEARING : 03-08-2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 03-08-2017 O R D E R PER CHANDRA POOJARI, A.M. : THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-VII, HYDERABAD , DATED 07-05-2015. 2. ORIGINALLY THE CASE WAS POSTED FOR HEARING ON 06-1 0-2015 AND WHICH WAS ADJOURNED TO 18-01-2016 SINCE THERE WAS NO POWER OF I.T.A. NO. 916/HYD/2015 :- 2 - : ATTORNEY (POA) FILED BY COUNSEL FOR ASSESSEE. ON 18 -01-2016 NONE APPEARED FOR ASSESSEE AND CASE WAS ADJOURNED TO 13-0 4-2016. ON THAT DAY, THE CASE WAS ADJOURNED TO 14-07-2016. SINCE NONE APPEARED FOR THE ASSESSEE, ONCE AGAIN THE WAS ADJOURN ED TO 18-10- 2016. ON THAT DAY, AR FILED POA AND ALSO PAPER BOOK AND THE CASE WAS ADJOURNED TO 11-01-2017 AND ON 11-01-2017, BENCH DID NOT FUNCTION AND CASE WAS ADJOURNED TO 18-04-2017. ON 1 8-04-2017 AND AR WAS DIRECTED TO FILE CONCISE GROUNDS OF APPEA L IN THIS CASE AND ADJOURNED TO 03-08-2017. SINCE NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE NOR THERE WAS ANY REQUEST FOR ADJOURNMEN T , WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED IN PROSECUTI NG THIS APPEAL. 3. FURTHER, IT HAS BEEN HELD BY THE HONBLE SUPREME CO URT IN THE CASE OF B.N. BHTTACHARGEE & ANR., [118 ITR 461] (SC) THAT APPEAL DOES NOT MEAN ONLY FILING OF MEMO OF AP PEAL BUT ALSO PURSUING IT EFFECTIVELY. IN CASES WHERE THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT WANT TO PURSUE THE APPEAL, COURT/TRIBUNAL HAVE INHERENT POWE R TO DISMISS THE APPEAL FOR NON PROSECUTION AS HELD BY H ONBLE HIGH COURT OF MUMBAI IN THE CASE OF M/S CHEMIPOL VS. UNION OF INDIA IN EXCISE APPEAL NO. 62 OF 2009. THEREFORE, RESPECTFULL Y FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF MULTIPLAN (IN DIA) LTD., (38 ITD 320) AND MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT IN LATE TUKOJI RAO HOLKAR (223 ITR 480), WE DISMISS THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE REASONS STATED ABOVE. 4. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE IS AT LIBERTY TO SEEK RECALL OF THIS ORDER BY WAY OF FILING A MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION SHOWIN G SUFFICIENT I.T.A. NO. 916/HYD/2015 :- 3 - : REASONS, WHICH PREVENTED HIM FOR ABSENCE ON THE SAID DATE OF HEARING OF THIS APPEAL. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY ASSESSEE IS DISM ISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 3 RD AUGUST, 2017 UPON CONCLUSION OF HEARING SD/- SD/- (D. MANMOHAN) (CHANDRA POOJARI) VICE PRESIDENT ACCOUNTANT MEMB ER HYDERABAD, DATED 3 RD AUGUST, 2017 TNMM COPY TO : 1. SRINIVAS REDDY GURRAM, PROP. VIJAYA DURGA WINES , H.NO. 1-21, RAMDASPALLY, IBRAHIMPATNAM MANDAL, RANG A REDDY DISTRICT. 2. THE ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE-9, HYDERABAD. 3. CIT (APPEALS)-VII, HYDERABAD. 4. CIT-VII, HYDERABAD. 5. D.R. ITAT, HYDERABAD. 6. GUARD FILE.