Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, INDORE BENCH, INDORE
Before: Shri Kul Bharat, Hon’ble & Shri Manish Borad, Hon’ble
M/s M.P. Vidyut Vitaran Company ITA No. 1056/Ind/2016
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE Before Shri Kul Bharat, Hon’ble Judicial Member and Shri Manish Borad, Hon’ble Accountant Member
ITA No. 1056/Ind/2016 A.Y. 2009-10
M/s Madhya Pradesh Kshetra Vidyut Viteran Company Ltd. Bhopal PAN – AADCM 6799G ::: Appellants
Vs Dy. Commr. of Income tax 2(1) Bhopal ::: Respondent
Appellant by None Respondent by Shri Lalchand CIT Date of hearing 4.12.2017 Date of pronouncement 4.12.2017
O R D E R PER SHRI MANISH BORAD, AM This appeal filed by the assessees emanateS from
the order of the learned CIT(A)-2, Bhopal, dated 22.7.2016.
M/s M.P. Vidyut Vitaran Company ITA No. 1056/Ind/2016 2. At the time of hearing, none is present for the assessee
whereas Shri Lalchand, learned Sr. CIT DR is present for
the revenue.
This appeal was filed by the assessees. This appeal
was earlier fixed for hearing on 26.9.2017 but on that date
the assessee did not appear. However, taking a lenient
view, this appeal was adjourned by the Bench and was
directed to be fixed on 4.12.2017. On this date also, the
assessee did not present. However, Shri Lalchand, learned
Senior CIT DR was present for the revenue.
From the above conduct of the assesse, it seems that
the assessee is not interested in pursuing the appeal. It
was the duty of the assessee to make necessary
arrangements for effective representation on the appointed
date. Mere filing of appeal is not enough rather it requires
effective prosecution also. In view of these facts, we are of
the view that the appeal of the assessee is liable for 2
M/s M.P. Vidyut Vitaran Company ITA No. 1056/Ind/2016 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 appeal but effectively pursuing it.” ii) In the case of Estate of late TukojiraoHolkar 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:
“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.” 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 communication
M/s M.P. Vidyut Vitaran Company ITA No. 1056/Ind/2016 for adjournment was received. There was no communication or information as to why the revenue chose to remain absent on date. The Tribunal on the basis of inherent powers, treated the appeal filed by the revenue as unadmitted in view of the provisions of Rule 19 of the Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee
is dismissed for non-prosecution.
Pronounced in open Court on 4th December, 2017.
Sd/- sd/-
(KUL BHARAT) (MANISH BORAD) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
4th December, 2017
M/s M.P. Vidyut Vitaran Company ITA No. 1056/Ind/2016