M/s. Gaurav & Group,, Ratlam v. The I..T.O., Ratlam

ITA 13/IND/2010 | 2002-2003
Pronouncement Date: 17-01-2011 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 1322714 RSA 2010
Bench Indore
Appeal Number ITA 13/IND/2010
Duration Of Justice 1 year(s) 9 day(s)
Appellant M/s. Gaurav & Group,, Ratlam
Respondent The I..T.O., Ratlam
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 17-01-2011
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted DB
Tribunal Order Date 17-01-2011
Date Of Final Hearing 15-12-2010
Next Hearing Date 15-12-2010
Assessment Year 2002-2003
Appeal Filed On 07-01-2010
Judgment 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 NOS.13 AND 14/IND/2010 A.YS. 2002-03 AND 2003-04 M/S GAURAV & GROUP RATLAM PAN AAGFG-0026J ..APPELLANT V/S. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2 RATLAM ..RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : NONE DEPARTMENT BY : SHRI P.K. MITRA SR. DR ORDER PER JOGINDER SINGH JM THESE APPEALS ARE BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST DIFFERENT ORDERS OF LD. CIT(A)-I BHOPAL DATED 4.11.2009 AND 5.11.2009 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2002-03 AND 2003-04 ON THE GROUNDS AS DETAILE D IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. DURING HEARING OF THIS APPEAL NOBODY IS PRESENT FOR THE ASSESSEE WHEREAS P.K. MITRA SR. DR IS PRESENT FOR THE REVENUE. THESE APPEALS WERE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ON 7.1.201 0 AS IS EVIDENT FROM ORDER SHEET ENTRY OF EVEN DATE. THESE APPEALS WERE WERE FIXED FOR 2 HEARING ON VARIOUS DATES AND WERE ADJOURNED DUE TO V ARIOUS REASONS. ON 2.11.2010 THESE APPEALS WERE ADJOURNED AT THE WRI TTEN REQUEST OF THE ASSESSEE FOR 15.12.2010. ON THAT DATE ALSO AT THE WRITTEN REQUEST OF THE ASSESSEE THESE WERE ADJOURNED TO 17.1.2011 I.E. TODAY AND LAST OPPORTUNITY WAS PROVIDED TO THE ASSESSEE. TODAY AL SO NEITHER ANYBODY WAS PRESENT FOR THE ASSESSEE NOR ANY APPLICATION F OR ADJOURNMENT WAS MOVED. IT SEEMS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTE D IN PURSUING THESE APPEALS THEREFORE THESE APPEALS DESERVE TO BE DIS MISSED BECAUSE THESE CANNOT BE KEPT PENDING ADJUDICATION FOR INDEFINITE P ERIOD. MERE FILING OF APPEAL IS NOT ENOUGH RATHER IT REQUIRES EFFECTIVE P ROSECUTION ALSO. IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THESE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE LIABLE FOR DISMISSAL. OUR VIEW IS SUPP ORTED 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 17 TH JANUARY 2011. (R.C. SHARMA) (JOGINDER SINGH) (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 17 TH JANUARY 2011 COPY TO: APPELLANT/RESPONDENT/CIT/CIT(A)/DR/GUARD FILE DN/-