M/s. Bharti Airtel Ltd.,Circle Office,, Indore v. The I.T.O. (TDS),, 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 NOS. 188 & 189 /IND/2010 A.YS. 2007-08 & 2008-09 M/S. BHARTI AIRTEL LIMITED INDORE PAN AAACB 2894 G APPELLANT VS ITO-TDS INDORE RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY : WRITTEN REQUEST O R D E R PER JOGINDER SINGH JUDICIAL MEMBER THESE APPEALS ARE BY THE ASSESSEES AGAINST THE COMM ON ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A)-II INDORE DATED 23.12.2009. DU RING HEARING OF THESE APPEALS NOBODY IS PRESENT FOR THE ASSESSEE. THESE APPEALS WERE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ON 9.4.20 10 AS IS EVIDENT FROM ORDER SHEET ENTRY OF EVEN DATE. THE AP PEALS WERE FIXED FOR HEARING FOR 14.10.2010 AND SAME WERE ADJOURNED TO 2 9.11.2010. ON 29.11.2010 THESE WERE AGAIN ADJOURNED TO 8.2.2011 I.E. TODAY AT THE 2 WRITTEN REQUEST OF THE ASSESSEE WHICH WAS DULY NOT ED BY THE MANAGAR- TAXATION OF THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER TODAY AT THE TI ME OF HEARING THE ASSESSEE NEITHER PRESENTED ITSELF NOR MOVED ANY ADJ OURNMENT PETITION. IT SEEMS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED TO PUR SUE ITS APPEALS THEREFORE THESE CANNOT BE KEPT PENDING ADJUDICATIO N FOR INDEFINITE PERIOD. MERE FILING OF APPEAL IS NOT ENOUGH RATHER IT REQUIRES EFFECTIVE 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 APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE LIABLE FO R DISMISSAL. OUR VIEW IS SUPPORTED BY THE FOLLOWING JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMEN TS: 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 3 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. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 8 TH FEBRUARY 2011. (R.C.SHARMA) (JOGINDER SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 8.2.2011 COPY TO: APPELLANT RESPONDENT CIT CIT(A) DR G UARD FILE !VYAS!