Smt. Radhika Jain, Bhopal V. THE ACIT 1(2), Bhopal

ITSSA 181/IND/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 122 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3668 (ITAT-INDORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 4 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 09-02-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 26-09-2016
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S S MANTRI

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCHE, INDORE BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER IT(SS)A NO.180/IND/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2004-05 & IT(SS)A NO.181/IND/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2005-06 RADHIKA JAIN, 26, TAPTI APARTMENT, T.T. NAGAR, BHOPAL / VS. ACIT - 2 (1), BHOPAL ( APPELLANT ) ( REVENUE ) P.A. NO. AATPJ5933E APPELLANT BY NONE RESPONDENT BY SHRI S . S . MANTRI , CIT - DR DATE OF HEARING: 05.02.2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 09.02.2018 / O R D E R PER MANISH BORAD, A.M: THESE APPEALS ARE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A)-2, INDORE, DATED 14.06.2016. DURING THE COUR SE OF HEARING NONE APPEARED AT ASSESSEES BEHALF. 2. WE FIND THAT THE APPEAL WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSE E ON 26.09.2016. THE APPEAL WAS FIXED FOR HEARING ON 05.02.2018 BUT NO ONE WAS RADHIKA JAIN 2 PRESENT, THEREFORE, IN ORDER TO PROVIDE ONE MORE OP PORTUNITY, THE CASE WAS ADJOURNED TO 05.02.2018 I.E. TODAY. NOTICE FOR HEARING ON 05.02.2018 WAS ISSUED, WHICH WAS DULY SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE AS IS EVIDENT FROM THE RPAD ON RECORD. BUT AGAIN, NO O NE IS PRESENT ON THE DATE OF HEARING. IT SEEMS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED TO PURSUE HER APPEAL, THEREFORE, IT CANNOT BE KEPT PEN DING FOR ADJUDICATION FOR INDEFINITE PERIOD. IT WAS THE DUTY OF THE ASSESSEE TO MAKE NECESSARY ARRANGEMENTS FOR EFFECTIVE REPRESENT ATION ON THE APPOINTED DATE. MERE FILING OF APPEAL IS NOT ENOUGH , RATHER IT REQUIRES EFFECTIVE PERSUASION ALSO. 3.IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT T HE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS LIABLE FOR DISMISSAL. OUR VIEW IS SUPPO RTED BY THE FOLLOWING JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS: 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 APPE AL BUT EFFECTIVELY PURSUING IT. II) IN THE CASE OF ESTATE OF LATE TUKOJIRAO HOLKAR V. C WT, 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 M ADE, FAILS TO APPEAR AT THE HEARING, OR FAILS IN TAKING STEPS FOR PREPARATION OF THE PAPER BOOKS SO AS TO ENABLE HEAR ING OF THE REFERENCE, THE COURT IS NOT BOUND TO ANSWER THE REFERENCE. RADHIKA JAIN 3 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 COMMUNICA TION 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 BASI S OF INHERENT POWERS, TREATED THE APPEAL FILED BY THE RE VENUE AS UNADMITTED IN VIEW OF THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 19 OF THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RULES, 1963. 4. IN THE RESULT, THESE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESS EE ARE DISMISSED FOR NON-PROSECUTION. ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 09 .02.2 018. SD/- (KUL BHARAT) SD/- (MANISH BORAD) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER INDORE; DATED : 09/ 02/2018 CTX? P.S/. . . COPY TO: ASSESSEE/AO/PR. CIT/ CIT (A)/ITAT (DR)/GUA RD FILE. BY ORDER PRIVATE SECRETARY/DDO, INDORE