PRAGATEE ENTERPRISES, MUMBAI V. DCIT 12(1), MUMBAI

ITA 1356/MUM/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 126 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8271 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-11-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: Not Allotted
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 27-02-2017
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: M C OMI NINGSHEN
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH H MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI N.K. PRADHAN (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) ITA NO. 1356/MUM/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011 - 12 PRAGATEE ENTERPRISES 4 TH FLOOR, 152, BAZAR GATE STREET, FORT, MUMBAI - 400001 VS. DCIT - 12(1) MUMBAI. PAN NO. AAJFP8649M APPELLANT RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : NONE REVENUE BY : MR. M.C. OMI NINGSHEN , DR DATE OF HEARING : 17 /10/2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 24/11/2017 ORDER PER N.K. PRADHAN, A.M. THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR IS 2011 - 12 . THE APPEAL IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) - 28 , MUMBAI AND ARISES OUT OF THE ASSESSMENT COMPLETED U/S 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961, (THE ACT). 2. WE FIND THAT THE CASE WAS FIXED FOR HEARING ON 22.08.2017. THE ASSESSEE MADE A REQUEST BY FILING AN APPLICATION FOR AN ADJOURNMENT. A CCORDINGLY, THE CASE WAS ADJOURNED TO 17.10.2017. THE ASSESSEE WAS ALSO INFORM ED ABOUT THE DATE OF HEARING ON 17.10.2017 AS IS EVIDENT FROM THE SIGNATURE OF ITS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE ON THE BODY OF THE PRAGATEE ENTERPRISES ITA NO. 1356/MUM/2017 2 ABOVE APPLICATION. IN SPITE OF THAT, NEITHER THE A SSESSEE NOR ITS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE APPEARED ON 17.10.2017 . 3. AT THE THRESHOLD, IT IS RELEVANT TO MENTION THAT NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE WHEN THIS APPEAL WAS CALLED FOR. WE FIND THAT PROPER NOTICE OF HEARING HAS ALREADY BEEN GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED IN PROSECUTING THE APPEAL. AS SUCH WE HOLD THAT THIS APPEAL IS LIABLE TO BE DISMISSED FOR NON - PROSECUTION. IN THIS REGARD, WE PLACE RELIANCE UPON FOLLOWING C ASE LAWS: 1 . ESTATE OF LATE TUKOJIRAO HOLKAR VS. CWT 223 ITR 480 (M.P.) 2 . NEW DIWAN OIL MILLS VS. CIT (2008) 296 ITR 495 (P& H) 3 . CIT VS. B. N. BHATTACHARGEE AND ANOTHER 118 ITR 461(SC) 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE LD. DR AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIALS ON RECORD. IT IS FOUND THAT NEITHER THE ASSESSEE NOR ITS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE APPEARED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). WE FIND THAT THE LD. CIT(A), HAVING GONE THROUGH THE RELEVANT RECORD HAS DISMISSE D THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE HIM. WE UPHOLD THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A). 5 . IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 24/11/2017. SD/ - SD/ - ( MAHAVIR SINGH) (N.K. PRADHAN) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI ; DATED: 24/11/2017 RAHUL SHARMA, SR. P.S. PRAGATEE ENTERPRISES ITA NO. 1356/MUM/2017 3 COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. THE CIT(A) - 4. CIT 5. DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. GUARD FILE . BY ORDER, //TRUE COPY// (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) ITAT, MUMBAI