Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, RANCHI BENCH “SMC” RANCHI
Before: Shri S.S, Godara
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RANCHI BENCH “SMC” RANCHI Before Shri S.S, Godara, Judicial Member ITA No.312/Ran/2016 Assessment Year:2009-10 M/s Sushila Coke & Commissioner of Income- बनाम Minerals, Suresh Colony, tax, Ravindra Path, / Hazaribagh V/s. Hazaribagh [PAN No. ABBFS 9152 R] .. अपीलाथ� /Appellant ��यथ� /Respondent None अपीलाथ� क� ओर से/By Appellant Shri Chandan Das, JCIT-DR ��यथ� क� ओर से/By Respondent 11-01-2019 सुनवाई क� तार�ख/Date of Hearing 13-02-2019 घोषणा क� तार�ख/Date of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2009-10 arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) Hazaribag’s order dated 08.09.2016 passed in case No.19/HZB/2015-16 involving proceedings u/s 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short ‘the Act’.
Today when the case was called for hearing none appeared on behalf of the assessee nor was any application for an adjournment filed by the assessee in spite of issue of notice by RPAD. It appears that the assessee is not serious in prosecuting this appeal. Hence the appeal filed by the assessee is liable to be dismissed for non- prosecution. For this view, I find support from the following decisions:- "1. In the case of CIT vs B.N.Bhattacharjee and another, reported in 118 ITR 461 [relevant pages 477 & 478] wherein their Lordships have held that: "The appeal does not mean merely filing of the appeal but effectively pursuing it."
ITA No. 312/Ran/16 A.Y. 2009-10 M/s Sushila Coke & Minerals Vs. CIT, HZB Page 2 3. In the case of Estate of late Tukojirao Holkar vs CWT; 223 ITR 480 (MP) 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 made, fails to appear at the hearing, or fails in taking steps for preparation of the paper books so as to enable hearing of the reference, the court is not bound to answer the reference." 4. In the case of Commissioner of Income-tax vs Multiplan India (P) 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 communication for adjournment was received. There was no communication or information as to why the revenue chose to remain absent on that date. The Tribunal on the basis of inherent powers, treated the appeal filed by the revenue as un admitted in view of the provisions of Rule 19 of the Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963. 5. I observe that if the Assessee is advised to file appropriate application for recalling the order on just cause it will be decided in accordance with law. 6. In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is dismissed for non- prosecution. Order is pronounced in accordance with Rule 34(4) of the ITAT Rules by putting on Notice Board on 13/02/2019 Sd/- (S.S. Godara) Judicial Member Ranchi, *Dkp/Sr.PS �दनांकः- 13/02/2019 रांची आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत / Copy of Order Forwarded to:- 1. अपीलाथ�/Appellant-M/s Sushila Coke & Minerals, Suresh Colony, Hazaribagh 2. ��यथ�/Respondent-CIT, Ravindra Path, Hazaribagh 3. संबं$धत आयकर आयु'त / Concerned CIT 4. आयकर आयु'त- अपील / CIT (A) 5. (वभागीय �+त+न$ध, आयकर अपील�य अ$धकरण रांची / DR, ITAT, Ranchi 6. गाड- फाइल / Guard file. By order/आदेश से, Sr. Private Secretary/P.S आयकर अपील�य अ$धकरण, रांची ।