Late Shri Guttulal Jain Through L/h Sanjay Jain, Bhopal V. The AC I T, Bhopal

ITSSA 88/IND/2009

• Counselvise Citation: [2010] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9112 (ITAT-INDORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 11 month(s) 16 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-06-2010
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 06-07-2009
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PJ F VS ACIT BHOPAL

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI JOGINDER SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI V.K. GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER IT(SS)A NO.88/IND/2009 BLOCK PERIOD: 1.4.1996 TO 13.6.2002 LATE SHRI GUTTULAL JAIN THROUGH L/H SANJAY JAIN/RAJESH JAIN, 9, KAMLA SADAN, LALWANI GALI, BHOPAL PAN ABYPJ 6261 F ..APPELLANT V/S. ACIT-1(1), BHOPAL ..RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : NONE DEPARTMENT BY : SHRI K.K. SINGH, CIT, DR ORDER PER JOGINDER SINGH, JM THIS APPEAL IS BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A)-I, BHOPAL, DATED 13.4.2009 FOR THE BLOCK PERIOD AS MEN TIONED ABOVE ON THE GROUNDS AS DETAILED IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. DURIN G HEARING OF THIS APPEAL, NOBODY IS PRESENT FOR THE ASSESSEE WHEREAS SHRI K.K. SINGH, CIT, DR IS PRESENT FOR THE REVENUE. 2 THIS APPEAL WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ON 6.7.2009 AS IS EVIDENT FROM ORDER SHEET ENTRY OF EVEN DATE. THE APPEAL WAS FIXED FOR HEARING FOR TODAY I.E. 22.6.2010 FOR WHICH REGISTERED AD NO TICE OF HEARING WAS SENT TO THE ASSESSEE ON THE ADDRESS AS PROVIDED IN FORM NO.36. THE ASSESSEE NEITHER PRESENTED HIMSELF NOR MOVED ANY AD JOURNMENT PETITION. IT SEEMS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERE STED TO PURSUE THE APPEAL, THEREFORE, IT CANNOT BE KEPT PENDING ADJUDIC ATION FOR INDEFINITE PERIOD. MERE FILING OF APPEAL IS NOT ENOUGH RATHER IT REQUIRES EFFECTIVE PROSECUTION ALSO. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO NOT FILED A NY INFORMATION WITH THE REGISTRY FOR NON-APPEARANCE. IN VIEW OF THESE F ACTS, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS LIABLE FOR DISMISSAL. OUR VIEW IS SUPPORTED 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 APPEAL BUT EFFECTIVELY PURSUING IT. II) 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 MADE FOLLOWING OBSERVATION IN THEIR ORDER: 3 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 REVENUE AS UNADMITTED IN VIEW OF THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 19 OF THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RULES, 1963. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED FOR NON-PROSECUTION. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT IN THE PRESENCE OF LEARNED SR. DR ON 22.6.2010. (V.K. GUPTA) (JOGINDER SINGH) (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 22.6.2010 COPY TO: APPELLANT/RESPONDENT/CIT/CIT(A)/DR/GUARD F ILE !VYAS!