Smt. Sangeeta Jaiswal,, Indore v. The I.T.O., Indore

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. 125/IND/2010 A.Y. 2005-06 SMT. SANGEETA JAISWAL INDORE PAN AFCPJ-8306B APPELLANT VS INCOME TAX OFFICER 1(3) INDORE RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY : SH. PRADEEP KUMAR MITRA SR. DR O R D E R PER JOGINDER SINGH JUDICIAL MEMBER THIS APPEAL IS BY THE ASSESSEES AGAINST THE ORDER O F THE LEARNED CIT(A) INDORE DATED 27.11.2009. DURING HEARING OF THIS APPEAL NEITHER THE ASSESSEE WAS PRESENT NOR ANY AUTHORIZED PERSON ON BEHALF OF THE 2 ASSESSEE WAS PRESENT. HOWEVER ONE APPLICATION DAT ED 16.2.2011 WAS MOVED BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE STATING T HAT HE WAS ONLY TELEPHONICALLY INFORMED ON 15.2.2011 THAT THE APPEA L IS FIXED FOR 17.2.2011. THE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE COUNSEL SHRI HEMANT VERMA WHO IS NOT DULY AUTHORIZED SOUGHT ADJOURNMENT. HE WAS INFORMED THAT THERE IS NO VALID GROUND FOR SEEKING ADJOURNMENT AS IDENT ICALLY AT THE WRITTEN REQUEST OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ON 30.1 1.2010 THE APPEAL WAS ADJOURNED MEANING THEREBY THAT IF THE ASSESSEE WANTED TO FILE ANY PAPER BOOK THERE WAS SUFFICIENT TIME AVAILABLE WIT H HIM. MR. HEMANT VERMA WAS ALSO TOLD THAT THE APPEAL WILL BE TAKEN U P FOR HEARING ON 18.2.2011. THIS DATE WAS DULY NOTED BY HIM AS IS E VIDENT FROM RECORD. INSPITE OF CLEAR INSTRUCTION NEITHER THE ASSESSEE APPEARED NOR ANY AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE . IT IS ALSO SEEN THAT IDENTICALLY ON 30.11.2010 THE APPEAL WAS ADJOURNED AT THE REQUEST OF THE ASSESSEE. INSPITE OF THAT THE ASSESSEE MOVED ADJO URNMENT PETITION. IT IS ALSO NOTED THAT NOTICE FOR TODAY I.E. 17.2.2011 WAS SENT TO THE ASSESSEE ON 11.1.2011. INSPITE OF ALL THESE EVENTS THE ASSESSEE NEITHER PRESENTED HIMSELF NOR MOVED ANY ADJOURNMENT PETITION THEREFORE THIS APPEAL CANNOT BE KEPT PENDING INDEF INITELY. IT SEEMS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED TO P URSUE ITS APPEAL THEREFORE THIS APPEAL CANNOT BE KEPT PENDING ADJUD ICATION FOR INDEFINITE PERIOD. MERE FILING OF APPEAL IS NOT ENOUGH RATHER IT REQUIRES EFFECTIVE 3 PROSECUTION ALSO. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO NOT FILED A NY INFORMATION WITH THE REGISTRY FOR ITS NON-APPEARANCE. IN VIEW OF THE SE 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. 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. 4 IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED FOR NON-PROSECUTION. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT IN THE PRESENCE OF LEARNED SR. DR AT THE CONCLUSION OF HEARING ON 18 TH FEBRUARY 2011. (R.C.SHARMA) (JOGINDER SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 18 TH FEBRUARY 2011 COPY TO: APPELLANT RESPONDENT CIT CIT(A) DR G UARD FILE DN/-