Shri Ram Narayan, Itarsi V. The ACIT, Bhopal

ITSSA 97/IND/2009

• Counselvise Citation: [2010] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8792 (ITAT-INDORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 3 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 02-11-2010
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 15-11-2010
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 10-07-2009
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: P K MITRA
• Keywords: Block assessment

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI JOGINDER SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI R.C. SHARMA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO (SS).96 /IND/2009 BLOCK ASSESSMENT FROM 01.04.96 TO 23.10.2002 SHRI ANIL AGRAWAL PAN ABBPA-9214G 9 TH LINE, ITARSI APPELLANT VS ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1(1), BHOPAL RESPONDENT AND ITA NO.(SS) 97/IND/2009 BLOCK ASSESSMENT FROM 01.04.96 TO 23.10.2002 SHRI RAMNARAYAN AGRAWAL PANABBPA-9210C 9 TH LINE, ITARSI .. APPELLANT VS. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1(1), BHOPAL RESPONDENT 2 APPELLANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY : SH P.K.MITRA SR. DR O R D E R PER BENCH THESE APPEALS ARE BY THE RESPECTIVE ASSESSEES AGAI NST THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A)-I, BHOPAL DATED 30.04.2009. D URING HEARING OF THESE APPEALS, NOBODY IS PRESENT FOR THE ASSESSEE W HEREAS SH P.K.MITRA, LEARNED SR. DR IS PRESENT FOR THE REVENUE. THESE APPEALS WERE FILED BY THE RESPECTIVE ASSESSE E ON 10.07.2009 AS IS EVIDENT FROM ORDER SHEET ENTRY OF EVEN DATE. THE APPEALS WERE EARLIER FIXED FOR HEARING ON VARIOUS D ATES LIKE 22.06.2010, 17.10.2010 ETC. WERE THE LD COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSE E WAS PRESENT. ON 13.09.2010 THE APPEALS WERE ADJOURNED FOR TODAY I.E 02.11.2010. HOWEVER, AT THE TIME OF HEARING THE ASSESSEES NEITH ER PRESENTED THEMSELVES NOR MOVED ANY ADJOURNMENT PETITION. IT SEEMS THAT THE ASSESSEES ARE NOT INTERESTED TO PURSUE THEIR APPEAL S, THEREFORE, THESE CANNOT BE KEPT PENDING ADJUDICATION FOR INDEFINITE PERIOD. MERE FILING OF APPEAL IS NOT ENOUGH RATHER IT REQUIRES EFFECTIVE P ROSECUTION ALSO. THE RESPECTIVE ASSESSEES HAS ALSO NOT FILED ANY INFORMA TION WITH THE REGISTRY FOR HIS NON-APPEARANCE. IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT 3 THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE LIABLE FOR DISMISSA L. 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 APPE AL 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: 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 HEARING OF THE R EFERENCE, 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 COMMUNICA TION FOR ADJOURNMENT WAS RECEIVED. THERE WAS NO COMMUNIC ATION OR INFORMATION AS TO WHY THE REVENUE CHOSE TO REMAI N ABSENT ON DATE. THE TRIBUNAL ON THE BASIS OF INHERENT POW ERS, TREATED THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE AS UNADMITT ED IN VIEW OF THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 19 OF THE APPELLATE TRIBU NAL RULES, 1963. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE A RE DISMISSED FOR NON-PROSECUTION. 4 ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT IN THE PRESENCE OF LEARNED CIT DR AT THE CONCLUSION OF HEARING ON 2 ND NOVEMBER, 2010. (R.C.SHARMA) (JOGINDER SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 02.11.2010 COPY TO: APPELLANT, RESPONDENT, CIT, CIT(A), DR, G UARD FILE !VYAS!