M/s. Jamadar Travels, Bharuch V. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Bharuch

ITSSA 50/AHD/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 118 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1819 (ITAT-SURAT)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 year(s) 1 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-02-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 27-07-2017
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 20-01-2014
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: B P K PANDA
• Section: 271(1)(c)

Judgement Text

JAMDAR TRAVELS V. ITO W-1 BHARUCH /I.T.SSA. NO.50/AHD/2014/A.Y.04-05 PAGE 1 OF 2 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI O. P. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.SSA. NO.50/AHD/2014: ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2004-05 M/S. JAMDAR TRAVELS , DANDIA BAZAR, BHARUCH PAN:AABFJ9426G VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, BHARUCH APPELLANT RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY NONE REVENUE BY SHRI B. P. K. PANDA, SR. D.R. DATE OF HEARING 20.02.2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 21. 02.2019 ORDER PER O. P. MEENA, AM 1. THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-VI, BARODA (IN SHORT THE CIT (A)) DATED 17.10.2013 PERTAINING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05, WHICH IN TURN HAS ARISEN FROM THE PENALTY ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) DTD. 24.03. 20111 OF INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT) BY THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- -1 BHARUCH (IN SHORT THE AO). 2. DURING HEARING OF THIS APPEAL, NOBODY IS PRESENT FOR THE ASSESSEE WHEREAS THE LD. D.R. IS PRESENT FOR THE REVENUE. 3. THE HEARING OF APPEAL WAS FIXED ON 14.11.2018 WAS ADJOURNED TO 20.02.2019 AND AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE WAS PRESENT AND INFORMED, BUT NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE NOR WAS ANY APPLICATION FOR ADJOURNMENT RECEIVED FROM THE ASSESSEE AT THE TIME OF THE HEARING. IT SEEMS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED TO PURSUE THE APPEAL, THEREFORE, IT CANNOT BE KEPT PENDING ADJUDICATION FOR INDEFINITE PERIOD. IT WAS THE DUTY OF THE ASSESSEE TO MAKE NECESSARY ARRANGEMENTS FOR EFFECTIVE REPRESENTATION JAMDAR TRAVELS V. ITO W-1 BHARUCH /I.T.SSA. NO.50/AHD/2014/A.Y.04-05 PAGE 2 OF 2 ON THE APPOINTED DATE. MERE FILING OF APPEAL IS NOT ENOUGH RATHER IT REQUIRES EFFECTIVE PERSUASION ALSO. IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE LIABLE FOR DISMISSAL IN THE LIGHT OF JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS BY HON`BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V. B. N. BHATTACHARJEE & OTHERS 118 ITR 461(SC), WHEREIN THEIR LORDSHIP HAVE HELD THAT THE APPEAL DOES NOT MEAN MERELY FILING OF THE APPEAL BUT EFFECTIVELY PURSUING IT. FURTHER, THE HON`BLE MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF ESTATE OF LATE TUKOJIRAO HOLKAR V. CWT, 223 ITR 480 (M.P.) WHILE DISMISSING THE REFERENCE MADE AT THE INSTANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IN DEFAULT THEIR LORDSHIP OBSERVE AS THAT 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. FURTHER, IN THE CASE OF CIT V. MULTIPLAN INDIA LTD., 38 ITD 320 (DEL), THERE WAS NO COMMUNICATION OR INFORMATION AS TO WHY THE REVENUE CHOSE TO REMAIN ABSENT ON DATE, HENCE, ON THE BASIS OF INHERENT POWERS, THE TRIBUNAL TREATED THE APPEAL; FILED BY THE REVENUE; AS UNADMITTED IN VIEW OF THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 19 OF THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RULES, 1963. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED FOR NON-PROSECUTION. 5. THE ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 21-02-2019. SD/- SD/- (KUL BHARAT) (O.P.MEENA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI: DATED: 21 ST FEBRUARY, 2019/OPM COPY OF ORDER SENT TO- ASSESSEE/AO/PR. CIT/ CIT (A)/ ITAT (DR)/GUARD FILE OF ITAT. BY ORDER / / TRUE COPY / / ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, SURAT