Mr Shibu Thomas, Bhopal v. The ITO, Bhopal

ITA 414/IND/2009 | 2005-2006
Pronouncement Date: 27-12-2010 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 41422714 RSA 2009
Bench Indore
Appeal Number ITA 414/IND/2009
Duration Of Justice 1 year(s) 4 month(s) 20 day(s)
Appellant Mr Shibu Thomas, Bhopal
Respondent The ITO, Bhopal
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 27-12-2010
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted DB
Tribunal Order Date 27-12-2010
Date Of Final Hearing 27-12-2010
Next Hearing Date 27-12-2010
Assessment Year 2005-2006
Appeal Filed On 06-08-2009
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH INDORE BEFORE SHRI JOGINDER SINGH JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI R.C. SHARMA ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.414/IND/2009 A.Y. - 2005-06 SHRI SHIBU THOMAS MIG-352 9-B SAKET NAGAR BHOPAL APPELLANT PAN ABXPT-0684K VS INCOME TAX OFFICER 1(2) BHOPAL RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY : SH P.K.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)-I BHOPAL DATED 05.03.2009. DURING HEARING O F THIS APPEAL NOBODY IS PRESENT FOR THE ASSESSEE WHEREAS SH P.K.MITRA LEARNED SR. DR IS PRESENT FOR THE REVENUE. -2- THIS APPEAL WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ON 07.08.200 9 AS IS EVIDENT FROM ORDER SHEET ENTRY OF EVEN DATE. THE APPEAL WAS FIXED FOR HEARING FOR TODAY I.E. 27.12.2010 FOR WHICH REGISTERED AD NOTIC E FOR HEARING WAS SENT TO THE ASSESSEE ON 19.11.2010. THE ASSESSEE NE ITHER PRESENTED HIMSELF NOR MOVED ANY ADJOURNMENT PETITION. IT SEEM S THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED TO PURSUE ITS APPEAL THEREFORE IT CANNOT BE KEPT PENDING ADJUDICATION FOR INDEFINITE PERIOD. MERE FI LING OF APPEAL IS NOT ENOUGH RATHER IT REQUIRES EFFECTIVE PROSECUTION ALS O. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO NOT FILED ANY INFORMATION WITH THE REGISTRY FO R ITS NON-APPEARANCE. IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE AP PEAL 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: -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 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. 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 27TH DECEMBER 2010 . (R.C.SHARMA) (JOGINDER SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 27.12.2010 COPY TO: APPELLANT RESPONDENT CIT CIT(A) DR G UARD FILE !DAYAL!