SHRI RAMESHWAR KHATI,INDORE vs. THE ITO 3(3), INDORE

Rameshwar Khatri – ITA No. 669/Ind/2016 Ramprasad Khatri ITA 670/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

Appellant by None Respondent by Shri K.G. Goyal Date of hearing 4.12.2017 Date of pronouncement 4.12.2017

O R D E R PER SHRI MANISH BORAD, AM These appeals filed by the above assessees

emanate from the different orders of the learned CIT(A)-I,

Indore, dated 19.2.2016. 1

Rameshwar Khatri – ITA No. 669/Ind/2016 Ramprasad Khatri ITA 670/Ind/2016 2. At the time of hearing, none is present for the assessee

whereas Shri K.G. Goyal, learned Sr. DR is present for the

revenue.

appeals were fixed for hearing on different dates but on all

the dates the assessee took adjournment on different

grounds. Finally, these appeals were fixed for hearing on

4.12.2017 on which date also there was no representation

on behalf of the assessee. However, Shri K.G. Goyal,

learned Senior DR was present for the revenue.

the assessee is not interested in pursuing the appeals. 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 appeals of the assessee are liable for 2

Rameshwar Khatri – ITA No. 669/Ind/2016 Ramprasad Khatri ITA 670/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

Rameshwar Khatri – ITA No. 669/Ind/2016 Ramprasad Khatri ITA 670/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.

assessee are 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