DYNA HITECH POWER SYSTEMS LTD, MUMBAI V. ACIT 8(1), MUMBAI

ITA 1266/MUM/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 56166 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 10 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-12-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 02-04-2013
• Assessment Year: 1999-2000
• Appeal Filed On: 16-02-2010
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PARTHASARTHY NAIK

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI J. SUDHAKAR REDDY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER, A ND SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 1266 AND 1267/MUM./2010 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 1999-2000 AND 2002-03 ) DYNA HITECH POWER SYSTEMS LTD. DYNA HOUSE, PLOT NO.A-57 MIDC, SECTOR-I, ANDHERI (E) MUMBAI 400 093 PAN AAACD5391A .. APPELLANT V/S ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-8(1), MUMBAI .... RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : NONE REVENUE BY : MR. PARTHASARTHY NAIK DATE OF HEARING 12.12.2011 DATE OF ORDER 23.12.2011 O R D E R PER J. SUDHAKAR REDDY, A.M. THESE APPEALS PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE, ARE DIRECT ED AGAINST THE IMPUGNED SEPARATE ORDERS DATED 17 TH DECEMBER 2009, PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS)-XVI, MUMBAI, FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 1999-2000 AND 2002-03 RESPECTIVELY. 2. BEFORE US, WHEN THE CASE WAS CALLED FOR HEARING, NO NE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. THERE IS NO APPLICATION SEE KING ADJOURNMENT EITHER. DYNA HITECH POWER SYSTEMS LTD. ITA NO. 1266/MUM./2010 2 UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE COME TO A CONCLUSION THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED IN PROSECUTING HIS APPEAL. 3. THE HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN M/S. CHEMI POL V/S UNION OF INDIA & ORS., IN CENTRAL EXCISE APPEAL NO.62 OF 200 9, VIDE JUDGMENT DATED 17 TH SEPTEMBER 2009, WHILE CONSIDERING THE JUDGMENTS OF HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN CIT V/S S. CHENIAPPA MUDALIAR, AIR 1969 SC 1068, SUNDERLAL MANNALAL V/S NANDRAMDAS DWARKADAS, AIR 1958 MP 260, AND OTHER JUDGMENTS, OBSERVED AS FOLLOWS:- 6. WE CANNOT ALTOGETHER LOSE SIGHT OF THE RULE THAT EVERY COURT OR TRIBUNAL HAS AN INHERENT POWER TO DISMISS A PROC EEDING FOR NON- PROSECUTION WHEN THE PETITION / APPELLANT BEFORE IT DOES NOT WISH TO PROSECUTE THE PROCEEDINGS. IN SUCH A SITUATION, UNL ESS THE STATUTE CLEARLY REQUIRES THE COURT OR TRIBUNAL TO HEAR THE APPEAL / PROCEEDING AND DECIDE IT ON MERITS, IT CAN DISMISS THE APPEAL / PROCEEDING FOR. THE DELHI BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN M/S. MULTIPLAN INDIA PVT. LTD. (1991) 38 ITD 320 (DEL.), HAS HELD THAT IN A SIMILAR CIRCU MSTANCES, THE APPEAL MAY BE DISMISSED AS UNADMITTED. 4. APPLYING THE AFORESAID PROPOSITIONS LAID DOWN BY TH E HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT AS WELL AS THE DECISION O F THE TRIBUNAL CITED SUPRA, WE TREAT THESE APPEAL AS UNADMITTED AND HOLD THE SA ME AS LIABLE TO BE DISMISSED AS SUCH. 5. IN THE RESULT, ASSESSEES APPEAL IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 23 RD DECEMBER 2011 SD/- V. DURGA RAO JUDICIAL MEMBER SD/- J. SUDHAKAR REDDY ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI, DATED: 23 RD DECEMBER 2011 DYNA HITECH POWER SYSTEMS LTD. ITA NO. 1266/MUM./2010 3 COPY TO : (1) THE ASSESSEE; (2) THE RESPONDENT; (3) THE CIT(A), MUMBAI, CONCERNED; (4) THE CIT, MUMBAI CITY CONCERNED; (5) THE DR, D BENCH, ITAT, MUMBAI. TRUE COPY BY ORDER PRADEEP J. CHOWDHURY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY ITAT, MUMBAI BENCHES, MUMBAI DATE INITIAL 1. DRAFT DICTATED ON 19.12.2011 SR.PS 2. DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR 19.12.2011 SR.PS 3. DRAFT PROPOSED & PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER 19.12.2011 JM/AM 4. DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED BY SECOND MEMBER 19.12.2011 JM/AM 5. APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.PS/PS 19.12.2011 SR.PS 6. DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 23.12.2011 SR.PS 7. FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK 29.12.2011 SR.PS 8. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK 9. DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER