Mukund Krishna Padekar, Pune V. ITO, Ward 3(4), Pune, Pune

ITA 1258/PUN/2009

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 49755 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 6 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 11-05-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 04-11-2009
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S C SHIVAGUNDE
• Section: 144

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH B, PUNE BEFORE SHRI SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI G.S. PANNU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 1258/PN/09 (ASSTT. YEARS: 2005-06) MUKND KRISHNA PADEKAR, .. APPELLANT S.NO 112, SHIVSHAKTI NAGAR, SUTAR DARA, KOTHRUD, PUNE PAN AJGPP96130D VS. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, .. RESPONDENT WD 3(4), PUNE APPELLANT BY: NONE RESPONDENT BY: SHRI S C SHIVAGUNDE ORDER PER G.S. PANNU, AM THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST TH E ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-II, PUNE D ATED 28.8.2009 WHICH, IN TURN, HAS ARISEN FROM AN ORDER DATED 26.1 1.2007 PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER SECTION 144 OF THE INCO ME-TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT), PERTAINING TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06. 2. IN THIS CASE, NOTICE WAS ISSUED FIXING THE CASE FOR HEARING ON 06.05.2011 AND THE NOTICE OF HEARING WAS DULY SE NT BY RPAD. HOWEVER, ON 06.05.2001, NEITHER ASSESSEE ATTENDED N OR THERE WAS ANY REQUEST FOR ADJOURNMENT. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED IN PROSECUTING HIS APPEAL. IT HAS BEEN HELD BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF B.N. BHTTACHARGEE & ANR., 118 ITR 461 THAT APPEAL DOES N OT MEAN ONLY FILING OF MEMO OF APPEAL BUT ALSO PURSUING IT EFFEC TIVELY. IN CASES WHERE THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT WANT TO PURSUE THE APPE AL, COURT/TRIBUNAL HAVE INHERENT POWER TO DISMISS THE APPEAL FOR NON- PROSECUTION, AS ITA NO 12587/PN/09 MUKUND K PADEKAR 2 HELD BY HONBLE HIGH COURT OF MUMBAI IN THE CASE OF M/S CHEMIPOL VS. UNION OF INDIA IN EXCISE APPEAL NO. 62 OF 2009. IN VIEW OF THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE HONBLE COURTS AND ALSO FOLLOWING THE D ECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF MULTIPLAN (INDIA) LTD., 38 ITD 320 AND MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT IN LATE TUKOJIRAO HOLKAR 223 ITR 480 (MP), WE DISMISS THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE FOR WANT OF PROS ECUTION. 3. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DIS MISSED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 11 TH DAY OF MAY, 2011. SD/- SD/- (SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV) (G.S. PANNU) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEM BER PUNE, DATED: 11 TH MAY, 2011 COPY TO:- 1) MUKND K PADEKAR, PUNE 2) THE ITO WD 3(4), PUNE 3) THE CIT (A)-II PUNE 4) THE CIT-II PUNE 5) THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, B BENCH, I.T.A.T., PUNE. 6) GUARD FILE BY ORDER //TRUE COPY// ASST. REGISTRAR, I.T.A.T., PUNE B