Smt. Meena Jain, Indore v. The Income Tax Officer, 4(3), Indore

ITA 542/IND/2010 | 2007-2008
Pronouncement Date: 05-12-2011 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 54222714 RSA 2010
Assessee PAN AHAPJ0282A
Bench Indore
Appeal Number ITA 542/IND/2010
Duration Of Justice 1 year(s) 3 month(s) 23 day(s)
Appellant Smt. Meena Jain, Indore
Respondent The Income Tax Officer, 4(3), Indore
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 05-12-2011
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted DB
Tribunal Order Date 05-12-2011
Date Of Final Hearing 23-08-2011
Next Hearing Date 23-08-2011
Assessment Year 2007-2008
Appeal Filed On 12-08-2010
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 IT(SS)A NO.542/IND/2010 A.Y. 2007-08 SMT. MEENA JAIN INDORE PAN AHAPJ 0282A APPELLANT VS INCOME TAX OFFICER 4(3) INDORE ... RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY : SHRI K. SAXENA DATE OF HEARING : 05.12.2011 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 05.12.2011 O R D E R PER JOGINDER SINGH THIS APPEAL IS BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A)-II INDORE DATED 30.3.2010 ON THE GROUNDS AS DETAILED IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. DURING 2 HEARING OF THIS APPEAL NOBODY IS PRESENT FOR THE A SSESSEE WHEREAS SHRI ARUN DEWAN LD. SR. DR IS PRESENT FOR THE REVENUE. 2. THIS APPEAL WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ON 12.8.20 10 AS IS EVIDENT FROM ORDER SHEET ENTRY OF EVEN DATE. THE APPEAL WAS FIXED FOR HEARING FOR TODAY I.E. 5.11.2011 FOR WHICH REGISTERED AD NOTICE WAS ISSUED AND DULY SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE AS IS EVIDENT FROM THE POS TAL ACKNOWLEDGMENT AVAILABLE ON RECORD. AT THE TIME OF HEARING THE AS SESSEE NEITHER PRESENTED HERSELF NOR MOVED ANY ADJOURNMENT APPLICAT ION. THE REGISTRY OF THIS TRIBUNAL WAS ALSO NOT INFORMED ABOUT NON-AP PEARANCE. IT SEEMS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED TO PURSUE HER A PPEAL THEREFORE IT 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 THE APPEAL 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. 3 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 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 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 NOBODY RE PRESENTED THE REVENUE/APPELLANT NOR ANY COMMUNICATION FOR ADJOURN MENT WAS RECEIVED. THERE WAS NO COMMUNICATION OR INFORMATIO N AS TO WHY THE REVENUE CHOSE TO REMAIN ABSENT ON DATE. THE TR IBUNAL ON THE BASIS OF INHERENT POWERS TREATED THE APPEAL FI LED BY THE REVENUE AS UNADMITTED IN VIEW OF THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 19 OF THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RULES 1963. 3. 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 5.11.2011. SD SD (R.C. SHARMA) (JOGINDER SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 5.11.2011 COPY TO: APPELLANT/RESPONDENT/CIT/CIT(A)/DR/GUARD F ILE DN/-