M/s C.I. Builders Pvt. Ltd., Bhopal v. The ACIT 1(2), Bhopal

1 INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH INDORE BEFORE SHRI JOGINDER SINGH JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI R.C. SHARMA ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NOS.273 & 274/IND/2013 A.YS. 2008-09 & 2009-10 C.I. BUILDERS PVT. LTD. BHOPAL PAN AABCC 6163 G ..APPELLANT V/S. ACIT-1(2) BHOPAL ..RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY NONE REVENUE BY SHRI R.A. VERMA SR. DR DATE OF HEARING 21.10.2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 21.10.2013 ORDER PER JOGINDER SINGH JUDICIAL MEMBER BOTH THESE APPEALS ARE BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE COMMON ORDER DATED 22.3.2013 PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A)-1 BHOPAL ON THE GROUNDS AS DETAILED IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. DURING HEARING O F THIS APPEAL NOBODY IS PRESENT FOR THE ASSESSEE WHEREAS SHRI R.A. VERMA L D. SR. DR IS PRESENT FOR THE REVENUE. 2 2. THESE APPEALS WERE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ON 7.5. 2013 AS IS EVIDENT FROM ORDER SHEET ENTRY OF EVEN DATE. THESE APPEALS WERE FIXED FOR HEARING FOR 21.10.2013 I.E. TODAY FOR WHICH REGISTERED AD NOTICE WAS SENT TO THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER TODAY AT THE TIME OF THE HEARING THE ASSESSEE NEITHER PRESENTED ITSELF NOR MOVED ANY ADJOURNMENT PETITION . IT SEEMS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED TO PURSUE ITS APPEALS T HEREFORE THESE CANNOT BE KEPT PENDING ADJUDICATION FOR INDEFINITE PERIOD. IT WAS THE DUTY OF THE ASSESSEE TO MAKE NECESSARY ARRANGEMENTS FOR EFFECTI VE REPRESENTATION ON THE APPOINTED DATE. MERE FILING OF APPEALS IS NOT ENOUGH RATHER IT REQU IRES EFFECTIVE PROSECUTION ALSO. IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE LIABLE FOR DISMISSA L. 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. 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 21.10.2013. SD SD (R.C. SHARMA) (JOGINDER SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 22.10.2013 COPY TO: APPELLANT/RESPONDENT/CIT/CIT(A)/DR/GUARD F ILE !VYAS!