M/s Catalytic Software LImited, Hyderabad V. ITO, Circle-1(2), Hyderabad

MA 39/HYD/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0250 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 03-05-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 30-01-2013
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH B : HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. ASHA VIJAYARAGHAVAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER M.A.NO.39/HYD/2013 ARISING OUT OF ITA.NO.1667/HYD/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-2007 M/S. CATALYTIC SOFTWARE LTD. HYDERABAD. PAN AABCC8337C APPLICANT VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, CIRCLE 1(2) HYDERABAD. RESPONDENT FOR APPLICANT : -NONE- FOR RESPONDENT : SMT. AMISHA GUPT (D.R.) DATE OF HEARING : 03.05.2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 03.05.2013 ORDER PER SMT. ASHA VIJAYARAGHAVAN, J.M. THE ABOVE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION WAS FILED BY TH E ASSESSEE SEEKING FOR RECALL OF THE ORDER DATED SEPTEMBER 19,2011 PASSED IN ITA. NO.1667/HYD/2010. 2. THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION HAS COME UP FOR HE ARING ON 8.3.2013, 22.3.2013 AND ON BOTH THE OCCASIONS, THE APPLICANT HAS NOT AP PEARED NOR ANY APPLICATION HAS BEEN FILED SEEKING FOR ADJOURNMENT. WHEN THE MATTER COME UP FOR HEARING AGAIN ON 03.05.2013, NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICAN T NOR THERE WAS ANY REQUEST FOR ADJOURNMENT. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT TH E APPLICANT IS NOT INTERESTED IN PROSECUTING THE MISCELLANEOUS APP LICATION. IT HAS BEEN HELD BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF B.N. BHATTACHARGEE & ANR., 118 ITR 461 THAT APPEAL DOES NOT MEAN ONLY F ILING OF MEMO OF APPEAL 2 BUT ALSO PURSUING IT EFFECTIVELY. IN CASES WHERE T HE ASSESSEE DOES NOT WANT TO PURSUE THE APPEAL, COURT/TRIBUNAL HAVE INHERENT POW ER TO DISMISS THE APPEAL FOR NON PROSECUTION AS HELD BY HONBLE HIGH COURT O F MUMBAI IN THE CASE OF M/S CHEMIPOL VS. UNION OF INDIA IN EXCISE APPEAL NO . 62 OF 2009. THEREFORE, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF MULTIPLAN (INDIA) LTD., (38 ITD 320) AND MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT IN LATE TUKOJIRAO HOLKAR (223 ITR 480), WE DISMISS THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION OF THE ASSESSEE FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION. 3. IN THE RESULT, MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION OF TH E ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT, ON 03 RD MAY, 2013. SD/- SD/- (CHANDRA POOJARI) (ASHA VIJAYARAGHAVAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER HYDERABAD, DATE 03 RD MAY, 2013. VBP/- COPY TO 1. M/S. CATALYTIC SOFTWARE LTD., NEW OROVILLE, KANCHA IMARAT, MAHESWARAM MANDAL, HYDERABAD.PAN AABCC8337C 1. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, CIRCLE 1 (2), HYDERABAD 2. THE DISPUTES RESOLUTION PANEL, 4A, I.T.TOWERS, A.C. GUARDS, HYDERABAD-500004. 3. THE DCIT, CIRCLE 1 (2), HYDERABAD 4. D.R. B BENCH, I.T.A.T. HYDERABAD 5. GUARD FILE (TRUE COPY) BY ORDER ASST. REGISTRAR, I.T.A.T. HYDERABAD.