Smt. Neeta Khandelwal, Sehore V. The ITO 2(3), Bhopal

MA 15/IND/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0259 (ITAT-INDORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 26-04-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 06-02-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R A VERMA

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.258/IND/2012 A.Y. 2005-06 SMT. NEETA KHANDELWAL C/O DEEPAK KHANDELWAL, SHASTRI COLONY, NASRULLAGANJ, DIST. SEHORE PAN AGBPK 3011 E ..APPELLANT V/S. ITO-2(3), BHOPAL ..RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY NONE REVENUE BY SHRI R.A. VERMA, SR. DR DATE OF HEARING 12 . 7 .2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 12 . 7 .2012 ORDER PER R.C. SHARMA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER THIS APPEAL IS BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER DA TED 15.2.2012 PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A)-RAIPUR (CAMP AT BHOPAL), O N THE GROUNDS AS DETAILED IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. DURING HEARING O F THIS APPEAL, NOBODY IS PRESENT FOR THE ASSESSEE WHEREAS SHRI R.A. VERMA, L D. SR. DR IS PRESENT FOR THE REVENUE. 2 2. THIS APPEAL WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ON 7.5.201 2 AS IS EVIDENT FROM ORDER SHEET ENTRY OF EVEN DATE. THE APPEAL WAS FIXE D FOR HEARING FOR 12.7.2012, FOR WHICH, REGISTERED AD NOTICE WAS SERV ED UPON THE ASSESSEE AS IS EVIDENT FROM POSTAL ACKNOWLEDGEMENT AVAILABLE ON RECORD. TODAY, AT THE TIME OF THE HEARING, THE ASSESSEE NEITHER PRESE NTED HERSELF NOR MOVED ANY ADJOURNMENT PETITION. IT SEEMS THAT THE ASSESSE E IS NOT INTERESTED TO PURSUE HER APPEAL, THEREFORE, IT CANNOT BE KEPT PEN DING ADJUDICATION FOR INDEFINITE PERIOD. IT WAS THE DUTY OF THE ASSESSEE TO MAKE NECESSARY ARRANGEMENTS FOR EFFECTIVE REPRESENTATION ON THE AP POINTED DATE. MERE FILING OF APPEAL IS NOT ENOUGH RATHER IT REQUIRES E FFECTIVE PROSECUTION ALSO. IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS, 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 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 T HE INSTANCE 3 OF THE ASSESSEE IN DEFAULT MADE FOLLOWING OBSERVATI ON 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 REFE RENCE, 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, WH ICH WAS FIXED FOR HEARING. BUT ON THE DATE OF HEARING, NOB ODY REPRESENTED THE REVENUE/APPELLANT NOR ANY COMMUNICA TION FOR ADJOURNMENT WAS RECEIVED. THERE WAS NO COMMUNICATI ON OR INFORMATION AS TO WHY THE REVENUE CHOSE TO REMAIN A BSENT ON DATE. THE TRIBUNAL ON THE BASIS OF INHERENT POWERS , TREATED THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE AS UNADMITTED IN VIEW O F THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 19 OF THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RUL ES, 1963. 3. 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 12.7.2012. SD/- SD/- (JOGINDER SINGH) (R.C. SHARMA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 12.7.2012 !VYS! COPY TO: APPELLANT/RESPONDENT/CIT/CIT(A)/DR/GUARD F ILE