R.P. INDUSTRIES,BHARUCH vs. THE ADDL. CIT, BHARUCH RANGE, BHARUCH

IA No 380/Ahd/20I6/RR Industries/A.Y 204L-42 3TA 34afy 3fearo,T zrrdojr IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SURAT BENCH, SURAT sft Hu jaf,-4f4T 7ar4 441 s 3.4.dal, du Ha74 # HT&T BEFORE SHRI CMGARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI O.P.MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER 3T.3T.HI:T.A No.380/Ahd/2016 faefruracf/Assessment Year 2011-12 R.P. Industries, Vs. Additional Commissioner of Income Plot No. 314/315, Tax, Bharuch GIDC Panoli Industrial Estate, Surat-394116 PAN-AAJFR2416A 3roflareffAppellant 9ffjRespondent faefdt & 3 # /Assessee by TTaTa &1 3 # /Revenue by None Shri Rahul Kumar, Sr. DR 27.12.2017 Iar-hrariw/ Date of hearing: 3quleuir-rarTo /Pronouncement on 2.01.2018 3Y8 [Q RDER PER CM GARG_JUDICIAL MEMBER 1. This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals)-1, Vadodara, dtd. 09.12.2015 for the assessment year 2011-12. 2. During hearing of this appeal, nobody is present for the assessee whereas the Ld: D.R: is present for the Revenue: 3. The hearing of appeal was fixed on 27.12.2017 but none appeared on behalf of the assessee nor was any application for adjournment received from the assessee at the time of the hearing: It seems that the assessee is not interested to pursue the appeal, therefore, it cannot be kept pending adjudication for indefinite ITA No 380Ahd/2016/R.P Industries/A Y 201L-IZ to make necessary arrangements for effective period: It was the duty of the assessee on the appointed date: Mere filing of appeal is not enough rather it representation requires effective persuasion also. In view of these facts, we are of the view that the are liable for dismissal in the light of judicial pronouncements appeals of the assessee Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT V. B. N: Bhattacharjee & Others 118 ITR by 461(SC), wherein their Lordship have held that "The appeal does not mean merely filing of the appeal but effectively pursuing it "Further, the Hon"ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Estate of late Tukojirao Holkar V CWT, 223 ITR 480 (MP:) while dismissing the reference made at the instance of the assessee in default their lordship observe as that "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: Further , in the case of CIT v. Multiplan India Ltd" 38 ITD 320 (Del), there was no communication revenue chose t0 remain absent on date, hence, on the or information as to why the basis of inherent powers, the Tribunal treated the appeal; filed by the revenue; as unadmitted in view of the provisions of Rule 19 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963. 4. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed for non-prosecution; 5. The order pronounced in the open Court on) 201.2018. sd1 - (O.P.MEENA) (CM: GARG) (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) (JUDICIAL MEMBER) TaI Surat: faiic5 IDated :| 101.2018 Copy sent to- Assessee/AO /Pr. CIT / CIT (A)/ ITAT (DR) /Guard file of ITAT: By order elw-lir Assistant Registrar, Surat 73145 qclazr #er erhh7 2TY T7 T.J 77.