Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Nagpur
Rakesh Chhugaram Khatri, Amaravati vs Jt. Cit , Amravati Circle, Amaravati on 11 July, 2018
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
BEFORE SHRI JASON P. BOAZ, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
& SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER
ITA No. 332/NAG/2013
(Asst. Year : 2009-10)
Rakesh Chhugaram Khatri, vs. JCIT, Amravati Circle,
Chhatri Talao Road, Amravati.
Amravati.
PAN No. ABIPK 3859 L
(Appellant) (Respondent)
Assessee by : None
Department By : Shri Gitesh Kumar - Sr.DR
Date of hearing : 09/07/2018.
Date of pronouncement : 09/07/2018.
ORDER
PER JASON P. BOAZ, AM:
This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of ld.Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-II, Nagpur and pertains to Assessment Year 2009-10. This appeal was heard and dismissed for non-prosecution vide order of even number dated 20/05/2015. The said order dated 20/05/2015 was recalled vide M.A.No.12/NAG/2015, dated 11/09/2015.
2. This appeal came for hearing on 09/07/2018. The notice was sent to the assessee for hearing on the address given by the 2 ITA No.332/NAG/2013 (Rakesh Chhugaram Khatri) assessee in Form No. 36. None was present on behalf of the assessee on the date of hearing. Neither an adjournment petition was filed in respect of the above assessee. It means that assessee is not interested to prosecute the appeal. Hence, the appeal filed by the assessee is liable to be dismissed for non-prosecution. For this view, we find support from the following decisions:-
1) In the case of CIT vs. Bhattachargee & another reported in 118 ITR 461 (relevant pages 477 & 478) "The appeal does not mean merely filing of the appeal but effectively pursuing it."
2) 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".
3) In the case of CIT vs. Multiplan India (P) Ltd., 38 ITD 320 (Delhi), 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 3 ITA No.332/NAG/2013 (Rakesh Chhugaram Khatri) appeal filed by the revenue as un-admitted in view of the provisions of Rule 19 of the Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963.
3. The assessee, if so desired, shall be free to move this Tribunal praying for recalling this order and explaining reasons for non-compliance etc. then this order may be recalled.
4. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed for non-prosecution.
Order Pronounced in open Court on this 09th day of July, 2018.
Sd/- sd/-
(SANDEEP GOSAIN) (JASON P. BOAZ)
Judicial Member Accountant Member
Dated : 09 t h July, 2018.
vr/-
Copy to:
1. The Assessee - Rakesh Chhugaram Khatri, Chhatri Talao Road, Amravati.
2. The Revenue - JCIT, Amravati Circle, Amravati.
3. The CIT
4. The CIT(A)-II, Nagpur.
5. The D.R., Nagpur.
6. Guard file.
By order (VUKKEM RAMBABU) Sr. Private Secretary, ITAT, Visakhapatnam.