Shri Arun Dagaria, Indore V. THE ACIT3(1), Indore

ITSSA 185/IND/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 122 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2556 (ITAT-INDORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 4 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 15-11-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 15-11-2016
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 15-07-2013
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: LALCHAND

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI D.T. GARASIA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI O.P. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A.SS. NO.185, 186, 187,188/IND/2013 AND I.T.A.NO. 537/IND/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2005-06,2007-08,2008-09,2009-10 AND 2010-11 RESPECTIVELY SHRI ARUN DAGARIA G2, JAORA TOWER, 22/2 MANORANJGANJ INDORE VS. ACIT 3(1) INDORE APPELLANT RESPONDENT PAN:ABWPD 7122 K APPELLANT BY NONE RESPONDENT BY SHRI LAL CHAND CIT(DR) DATE OF HEARING 15.11.2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 15.11.2016 O R D E R PER O.P. MEENA, ACCOUTANT MEMEBR. 1. THIS APPEALS ARE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE SEP ARATE ORDERS OF LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-I, INDORE ALL DTD. 14.03.2013 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2005-06, 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10 AND 2010-11 RESPECTIVELY. 2. DURING HEARING OF THIS APPEAL, NOBODY IS PRESENT FOR T HE ASSESSEE WHEREAS SHRI LAL CHAND CIT(DR) IS PRESENT FOR THE REVENUE. PAGE 2 OF 3 SHRI ARUN DAGARIA ITSSNO.185TO 188 AND 537/IND/2013 3. THESE ALL APPEALS WERE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ON 15.07. 2013, AS IS EVIDENT FROM ORDER SHEET ENTRY OF EVEN DATE. EARLIER THESE APPEALS WERE FIXED ON 03.10.2016 AND THE SAME WERE ADJOURNED TO 15.11.2016; IN THE PRE SENCE OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF T HE ASSESSEE NOR ANY APPLICATION WAS RECEIVED ON THE ABOVE DATE. TODAY I.E. ON 15.11.2016, AT THE TIME OF THE HEARING, THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT PRESENT. IT SEEMS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED TO PURSUE ITS APPEALS, THEREFORE, IT CANNOT BE KEPT PENDING ADJUDICATION FOR INDEFINITE PERIOD. IT WAS THE DUTY OF THE ASSESSEE TO MAKE NECESSARY ARRANGEMENTS FOR EFFECTIVE REPRESENTATION ON THE APPOINTED DATE. MERE FILING OF APPEAL IS NOT ENOUGH RATHER IT REQUIRE S EFFECTIVE PERSUASION ALSO. IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE LIABLE FOR DISMISSAL. OUR VIEW IS SUPPORTED BY THE FO LLOWING JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS: 4. IN THE CASE OF CIT V. B.N. BHATTACHARGEE AND ANOTHE R, REPORTED IN 118 ITR 461 (RELEVANT PAGES 477 AND 478 ) WHEREIN THEIR LORDSHIPS HAVE HELD THAT:THE APPEAL DOES NOT M EAN MERELY FILING OF THE APPEAL BUT EFFECTIVELY PURSUING IT. 5. 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 TH E 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, O R 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. PAGE 3 OF 3 SHRI ARUN DAGARIA ITSSNO.185TO 188 AND 537/IND/2013 6. IN THE CASE OF CIT V. MULTIPLAN INDIA LTD., 38 ITD 3 20 (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 WA S NO COMMUNICATION OR INFORMATION AS TO WHY THE REVENUE CH OSE TO REMAIN ABSENT ON DATE. THE TRIBUNAL ON THE BASIS OF INHERENT POWERS , TREATED THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE AS UNADMITTED IN VIEW OF THE PROV ISIONS OF RULE 19 OF THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RULES, 1963. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE D ISMISSED FOR NON- PROSECUTION. 8. THIS ORDER HAS BEEN PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 15 .11.2016. SD/- (D.T.GARASIA) JUDICIAL MEMBER SD/- (O.P.MEENA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED : 15 TH NOVEMBER, 2016.