EFTEC SHROFF (INDIA) LTD, MUMBAI V. ADDL CIT 9(1), MUMBAI

ITA 1029/MUM/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 134 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8453 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 11-02-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Next Hearing Date: 23-02-2012
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 09-02-2010
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SUM EET KUMAR

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES E, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI. T.R. SOOD (A.M.) AND SHRI. VIJAY PAL R AO (J.M) ITA NO.1029/MUM/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006-2007 EFTEC SHROFF (INDIA) LTD. PLOT NO.645/46, 4 TH & 5 TH FLR., OBERIU CHAMBERS, NEW LINK RD., ANDHERI (W), MUMBAI 400 053. PAN : AAACE7652D VS. ADDL CIT 9(1) MUMBAI. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : NONE. RESPONDENT BY : SHRI SUMEET KUMAR O R D E R PER VIJAY PAL RAO, J.M. THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A)-19, MUMBAI DATED 25.11.2009. 2. ORIGINALLY THE CASE WAS FIXED FOR HEARING ON 22. 11.2010 AND AT THE REQUEST OF THE ASSESSEE VIDE ITS LETTER DATED 22.11 .2010, THE ASSESSEE REQUESTED FOR ADJOURNMENT OF HEARING AND ACCORDINGL Y THE HEARIN WAS ADJOURNED TO 08.02.2011 AND BOTH THE PARTIES HAVE B EEN INFORMED ACCORDINGLY. INSPITE OF THE SAME, NOBODY HAS PUT I N APPEARANCE ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE ON 08.02.2011. FROM THIS NON-COMPLIAN T ATTITUDE OF THE ASSESSEE, IT APPEARS THAT HE IS NOT SERIOUSLY INTER ESTED IN PROSECUTING HIS APPEAL FILED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 3. CONSIDERING THE FACTS STATED ABOVE AND KEEPING I N MIND PROVISIONS OF RULE 19(2) OF THE ITAT RULE AS WERE CONSIDERED BY T HE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. MULTIPLAN INDIA PVT. LTD. 38 ITD 320(DELHI) AS WELL AS BY THE HONBLE M.P. HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF ESTATE OF LATE TUKOJ IRAO HOLKAR VS. CWT 223 ITR 480 (MP), THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS TREATE D AS UNADMITTED AND ITA NO.1029/MUM/2010 A.Y.: 2006-2007 2 DISMISSED FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION. THE ASSESSEE, I F SO ADVISED, SHALL BE FREE TO MOVE THE TRIBUNAL EXPLAINING THE REASONS FOR NON -COMPLIANCE AND SEEKING RECALL OF THIS ORDER AND IF THE BENCH IS SO SATISFI ED, THEN THIS ORDER MAY BE RECALLED. 4. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS D ISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THIS 11 TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2011. SD/- (T.R. SOOD) (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) SD/- (VIJAY PAL RAO) (JUDICIAL MEMBER) MUMBAI, DATED 11.02.2011. JANHAVI COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)- , MUM BAI 4. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CITY- , MUMBAI 5. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, BENCH E, MUMBAI //TRUE COPY// BY ORDER ASSTT. REGISTRAR, ITAT, MUMBAI