Syed M. Mehdi,, Hyderabad vs Assessee

ITA.No.1348, 1349, 1350, 1351, 1352 & 1353/Hyd/2013 Assessment Years 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09 and 2009-2010

Mr. Syed M. Mehdi vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Hyderabad. Hyderabad. PAN AHRPM4166D (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Assessee : -None- For Revenue : Mr. P. Somasekhar Reddy

Date of Hearing : 21.05.2015 Date of Pronouncement : 21.05.2015

ORDER

PER BENCH :

These six appeals filed by the assessee are directed against the common order of the Ld. CIT (Central), Hyderabad dated 27.03.2013 passed under section 263 whereby he revised the orders passed by the A.O. under section 143(3) read with section 153A of the Act for A.Ys. 2004-2005 to 2009- 2010.

2. In this case, the hearing was initially fixed before the Tribunal on 04.02.2014. The assessee however sought adjournment on the said date for the reason that some additional evidence was to be filed by him. The hearing accordingly was adjourned to 19.05.2014. However, no such additional evidence was filed by the assessee by 19.05.2014. On the other hand, the assessee again sought adjournment of 2 ITA.Nos.1348 to 1353/Hyd/2013 Mr. Syed M. Mehdi, Hyderabad.

the hearing fixed on 19.05.2014 by filing an application. Since no reason whatsoever was given in the said application for seeking adjournment, a token cost of Rs.100 was imposed by the Tribunal on the assessee while adjourning the hearing to 15.10.2014. The Bench did not function on 15.10.2014 and hearing therefore was adjourned to 07.01.2015. The assessee again sought adjournment on 07.01.2015 and accordingly the hearing was adjourned by the Bench to 21.05.2015. On 21.05.2015 i.e., today, none however has appeared on behalf of the assessee at the time of hearing nor any application seeking adjournment has been filed. This casual and non-compliant attitude of the assessee clearly shows that he is not seriously interested in prosecuting these appeals filed before the Tribunal.

3. It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. B. N. Bhattacharjee & Another(SC) Supreme Court Decision dt,04-05-1979, 118 ITR 461(SC) at pages 477/478 that appeal does not mean filing memo of appeal but also pursuing it effectively. In cases where assessee does not want to pursue the appeal, Court/Tribunal have inherent powers to dismiss the appeal for non prosecution as held by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of M/s. Chemipol vs. Union of India in Central Excise Appeal No. 62 of 2009.

4. Hence following the decision of the Tribunal in the case of CIT vs. Multiplan India (P) Ltd., reported in 38 ITD 320 (Del), as also the decision of the Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar vs. CWT, reported in 223 ITR 480 (MP), and further the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court dated 17.09.2010 in the case of M/s. Chemipol vs. Union of India in Central 3 ITA.Nos.1348 to 1353/Hyd/2013 Mr. Syed M. Mehdi, Hyderabad.

Excise Appeal No. 62 of 2009, we treat these appeals as un- admitted and dismiss the same for want of prosecution by the assessee.

5. In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open Court on 21.05.2015.

Sd/- Sd/- (SAKTIJIT DEY) (P.M. JAGTAP) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Hyderabad, Dated 21st May, 2015

VBP/-

Copy to

1. Mr. Syed M. Mehdi, Hyderabad C/o. Ravindra Chenji, Advocate, C-308, Ahuja Estate, Hyderabad.

2. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Hyderabad.

3. CIT-(Central), 7th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad.

4. Addl. CIT, C.R.-2, Hyderabad.

5. D.R. I.T.A.T. "A" Bench, Hyderabad.

6. Guard File