Vaijnath Uttam Rao, Hyd, Hyderabad V. ITO, Ward-4(2), Hyderabad, Hyderabad

ITA 941/HYD/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6122 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-10-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 22-06-2016
• 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. 941/HYD/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 VAIJNATH UTTAM RAO, HYDERABAD PAN ACUPP 454541 K VS. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD 4(2), HYDERABAD. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : NONE REVENUE BY : SHRI K.J. RAO DATE OF HEARING : 25-10-2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 25-10-2016 O R D E R PER S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, A.M.: THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST O RDER DATED 29/04/2016 OF LD. CIT(A) - 1, HYDERABAD FOR AY 2007 -08. 2. WHEN THIS APPEAL CAME FOR HEARING TODAY I.E. 25/ 10/2016, NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE NOR THERE WAS AN Y REQUEST FOR ADJOURNMENT. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT TH E ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED IN PROSECUTING ITS APPEA L. IT HAS BEEN HELD BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF B.N. BHTTACHARGEE & ANR., 118 ITR 461 THAT APPEAL DOES NOT MEAN ONLY FILING OF MEMO OF APPEAL BUT ALSO PURSUING I T EFFECTIVELY. IN CASES WHERE THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT WANT TO PURSUE TH E 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 2 ITA NO. 941 /HYD/2016 VAIJNATH UTTAM RAO 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 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 25 TH OCTOBER, 2016. SD/- SD/- (P. MADHAVI DEVI) (S. RIFAUR RAHMAN) JUDICIAL MEMBER AC COUNTANT MEMBER HYDERABAD, DATED: 25 TH OCTOBER, 2016 KV COPY TO:- 1) VAIJNATH UTTAM RAO, C/O DJ ADHIA, B.COM, LLB 15-1-537/9, SIDDIAMBER BAZAR, HYD 500 012 2) ITO, WARD 4(2), HYDERABAD. 3) CIT(A) 1, HYDERABAD 4) PR. CIT - 1, HYDERABAD 5) THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, I.T.A.T., H YDERABAD. 6) GUARD FILE