Shri Praveen Kothari, Indore v. The ITO Ward-4(4), Indore

ITA 217/IND/2013 | 2006-2007
Pronouncement Date: 29-10-2013 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 21722714 RSA 2013
Assessee PAN AKPPK2595P
Bench Indore
Appeal Number ITA 217/IND/2013
Duration Of Justice 6 month(s) 11 day(s)
Appellant Shri Praveen Kothari, Indore
Respondent The ITO Ward-4(4), Indore
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 29-10-2013
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted DB
Tribunal Order Date 29-10-2013
Assessment Year 2006-2007
Appeal Filed On 17-04-2013
Judgment Text
1 INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH INDORE BEFORE SHRI JOGINDER SINGH JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI R.C. SHARMA ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.217 & 218/IND/2013 A.YS. 2006-07 & 2007-08 PRAVIN KOTHARI INDORE PAN AKPPK 2595 P ..APPELLANT V/S. ITO WARD-4(4) INDORE ..RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY NONE REVENUE BY SHRI BHIM KUNWAR SR.DR DATE OF HEARING 29 . 10 .2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 29 . 10 .2013 ORDER PER BENCH THESE APPEALS ARE BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE DIFFE RENT ORDERS DATED 13.12.2012 AND 31.12.2012 RESPECTIVELY PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A)-II INDORE ON THE GROUNDS AS DETAILED IN THE GROUNDS O F APPEALS. DURING HEARING OF THESE APPEALS NOBODY IS PRESENT FOR THE ASSESSEE WHEREAS SHRI BHIM KUNWAR LD. SR. DR IS PRESENT FOR THE REVENUE. 2 2. THESE APPEALS WERE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ON 17.4 .2013 AS IS EVIDENT FROM ORDER SHEET ENTRY OF EVEN DATE. REGISTERED NOT ICES FOR HEARING FOR 6.8.2013 17.9.2013 AND 29.10.2013 RESPECTIVELY W ERE ISSUED BY THE REGISTRY. HOWEVER TODAY I.E. 29.10.2013 AT THE T IME OF THE HEARING THE ASSESSEE NEITHER PRESENTED HIMSELF NOR MOVED ANY AD JOURNMENT PETITION. IT SEEMS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED TO PURSUE HIS APPEALS THEREFORE SAME CANNOT BE KEPT PENDING ADJUDICATION FOR INDEFI NITE PERIOD. IT WAS THE DUTY OF THE ASSESSEE TO MAKE NECESSARY ARRANGEMENTS FOR EFFECTIVE REPRESENTATION ON THE APPOINTED DATE. MERE FILING O F APPEALS IS NOT ENOUGH RATHER IT REQUIRES EFFECTIVE PROSECUTION ALSO. IN V IEW OF THESE FACTS WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE LI ABLE FOR DISMISSAL. OUR VIEW IS SUPPORTED BY THE FOLLOWING JUDICIAL PRONOUN CEMENTS: 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 OF THE ASSESSEE IN DEFAULT MADE FOLLOWING OBSERVATI ON IN THEIR ORDER: 3 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 APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED FOR NON-PROSECUTION. ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT IN THE PRES ENCE OF LEARNED SENIOR DR ON 29.10.2013. SD/- SD/- (R.C. SHARMA) (JOGINDER SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 29.10.2013 COPY TO: APPELLANT/RESPONDENT/CIT/CIT(A)/DR/GUARD F ILE VYAS