Smt. Ritu Gyanchandani, V. The DCIT, 3(1),

ITSSA 101/IND/2006

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8232 (ITAT-INDORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 6 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 15-06-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 31-05-2017
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 22-11-2006
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R VARSHNEY

Judgement Text

SMT. RITU GYANCHANDANI, BHOPAL IT(SS) A NO. 101/IND/2006 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI D.T. GARASIA, HONBLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B.C. MEENA, HONBLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER IT(SS)A NO. 101/IND/2006 BLOCK PERIOD FROM A.Y. 1987-88 TO 1997-98 MRS. RITU GYANCHANDANI BHOPAL ::: APPELLANT VS DY. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX 3(1) BHOPAL ::: RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY NONE RESPONDENT BY SHRI R. VARSHNEY DATE OF HEARING 10.2.2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 10.2.2016 O R D E R PER SHRI B.C. MEENA, AM THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE EMANATES FROM THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A)-II, BHOPAL, DATED 19.10.2004. SMT. RITU GYANCHANDANI, BHOPAL IT(SS) A NO. 101/IND/2006 2 2. NONE ATTENDED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF THE PRESENT APPEAL. HOWEVER, THE LEARNED CI T DR WAS PRESENT. 3. THIS APPEAL WAS FIXED FOR HEARING 10.2.2016 ON WHIC H DATE THERE WAS NEITHER ANY REPRESENTATION ON BEHALF OF T HE ASSESSEE NOR ANY APPLICATION FOR ADJOURNMENT WAS MOVED. 3. FROM THE ABOVE CONDUCT OF THE ASSESSE, IT SEEMS TH AT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED IN PURSUING THE APPEAL. IT WAS THE DUTY OF THE ASSESSEE TO MAKE NECESSARY ARRANGEMENTS FOR EFFECTIVE REPRESENTATION ON THE APPOIN TED DATE. MERE FILING OF APPEAL IS NOT ENOUGH RATHER IT REQU IRES EFFECTIVE PROSECUTION ALSO. IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS, W E ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS LIABLE FOR DISMISSAL. OUR VIEW IS SUPPORTED BY THE FOLLOWING JU DICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS: SMT. RITU GYANCHANDANI, BHOPAL IT(SS) A NO. 101/IND/2006 3 I) IN THE CASE OF CIT V. B.N. BHATTACHARGEE AND ANOTHER, REPORTED IN 118 ITR 461 (RELEVANT PAGES 477 AND 478) WHEREIN THEIR LORDSHIPS HAVE HELD THAT: THE APPEAL DOES NOT MEAN MERELY FILING OF THE APPEAL BUT EFFECTIVELY PURSUING IT. II) IN THE CASE OF ESTATE OF LATE TUKOJIRAOHOLKAR V. CWT, 223 ITR 480 (M.P.) WHILE DISMISSING THE REFERENCE MADE AT THE INSTANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IN DEFAULT MADE FOLLOWING OBSERVATION IN THEIR ORDER: IF THE PARTY, AT WHOSE INSTANCE THE REFERENCE IS MADE, FAILS TO APPEAR AT THE HEARING, OR FAILS IN TAKING STEPS FOR PREPARATION OF THE PAPER BOOKS SO AS TO ENABLE HEARING OF THE REFERENCE, THE COURT IS NOT BOUND TO ANSWER THE REFERENCE. III) IN THE CASE OF CIT V. MULTIPLAN INDIA LTD., 38 ITD 320 (DEL), THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL, WHICH WAS FIXED FOR HEARING. BUT ON THE DATE OF HEARING, NOBODY REPRESENTED THE REVENUE/ APPELLANT NOR ANY COMMUNICATION FOR ADJOURNMENT WAS RECEIVED. THERE WAS NO COMMUNICATION OR INFORMATION AS TO WHY THE REVENUE CHOSE TO REMAIN ABSENT ON DATE. THE TRIBUNAL ON THE BASIS OF INHERENT POWERS, TREATED THE APPEAL FILED BY THE SMT. RITU GYANCHANDANI, BHOPAL IT(SS) A NO. 101/IND/2006 4 REVENUE AS UNADMITTED IN VIEW OF THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 19 OF THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RULES, 1963. 3. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED FOR NON-PROSECUTION. PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 10 TH FEBRUARY, 2016 SD/- SD/- (D.T. GARASIA) (B.C. MEENA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED 29 TH FEBRUARY, 2016 DN/-