PRAFUL M PATEL, NAVI MUMBAI V. DCIT RG 22(3), NAVI MUMBAI

ITA 1627/MUM/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 134 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8273 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 4 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 07-03-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 03-02-2015
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 03-03-2010
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: O P SHARMA

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH C, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI N.V.VASUDEVAN(J.M) & SHRI RAJENDRA SIN GH (A.M) ITA NO.1627/MUM/2010(A.Y. 2006-07) SHRI PRAFUL M PATEL (KAPUPARA), PROP. M/S. RAJ CONSTRUCTION & M/S. RAJ ENTERPRISES, PLOT NO.B-75, SECTOR 29, AGROLI VILLAGE, AT. POST KONKAN BHAVAN, NAVI MUMBAI 400 614 PAN:AGGPP 3391P (APPELLANT) VS. THE DCIT RG. 22(3), 3 RD FLOOR, TOWER -6, VASHI RLY. STATION COMPLEX, VASHI, NAVI MUMBAI. (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY : SHRI O.P.SHARMA ORDER PER N.V.VASUDEVAN, J.M, THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED A GAINST THE ORDER DATED 22 ND JAN. 2010 OF THE CIT(A)33,MUMBAI RELATING TO THE A SSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. 2. NOTICE OF HEARING DATED 13/1/2011 WAS SENT T O THE ASSESSEE BY RPAD TO THE ADDRESS GIVEN IN FORM NO.36. HOWEVER , THE SAID NOTICE HAS BEEN RETURNED BY THE POSTAL AUTHORITIES WITH THE R EMARK UNCLAIMED. NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE DATE OF HEARING I.E. ON 7/3/2011. NO ADJOURNMENT PETITION SEEKING ADJOUR NMENT OF THE CASE WAS ALSO FILED. THE ABOVE CONDUCT ON THE PART OF THE A SSESSEE SHOWS THAT ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED IN PROSECUTING THE APPE AL FILED BY HIM. THEREFORE, ITA NO.1627/MUM/2010(A.Y. 2006-07) 2 FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL REPORTED IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. MULTIPLAN INDIA (P) LTD.38 ITD 320 (DEL) AND THE D ECISION OF THE HONBLE MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF ESTATE OF LATE TUKOJIRAO HOLKAR VS. CWT, 223 ITR 480 (M.P) THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED IN LIMINE. HOWEVER, IF THE ASSESSEE THROUGH PROPER AP PLICATION CAN SATISFY THE TRIBUNAL FOR SUCH NON-APPEARANCE ON THE APPOINTED D ATE, THE TRIBUNAL AT ITS DISCRETION MAY RECALL THIS ORDER. 3. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE 7 TH DAY OF MARCH, 2011. SD/- SD/- (RAJENDRA SINGH) (N.V.VASUDEVAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI, DATED. 7 TH MARCH.2011 COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3 . THE CIT CITY CONCERNED 4. THE CIT(A)- CONCERNED 5. THE D.RC BENCH. (TRUE COPY) BY ORDER ASST. REGISTRAR, I TAT, MUMBAI BENCHES MUMBAI. VM. ITA NO.1627/MUM/2010(A.Y. 2006-07) 3 DETAILS DATE INITIALS DESIGNATION 1 DRAFT DICTATED ON 7/3/2011 SR.PS/PS 2 DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR 7/3/2011 SR.PS/PS 3 DRAFT PROPOSED & PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER JM/AM 4 DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED BY SECOND MEMBER JM/AM 5. APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.PS/PS SR.PS/PS 6. KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT ON SR.PS/PS 7. FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK SR.PS/PS 8 DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK 9 DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER