ADHUNIK YARNS LTD, MUMBAI V. DCIT 9(1), MUMBAI

ITA 1638/MUM/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4963 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 5 month(s) 16 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-08-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 22-08-2013
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 07-03-2012
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S K MADHUK

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH, MUM BAI , , BEFORE SHRI D.MANMOHAN, VP JM AND SHRI SANJAY ARORA, AM !'!'#$'% I.T.A. NO. 1638/MUM/2012 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08) ADHUNIK YARNS LTD, PLOT NO.5 NURIA PAL INDUSTRIES ESTATE, I ST CRS, M.G. LANE, SAI NAGAR KANDIVLAI (WEST) MUMBAI 400067 % VS. DY. CIT 9(1) AAYAKAR BHAVAN, M.K. ROAD MUMBAI 400020 & %$'$ ./PAN/GIR NO. AAACA3351R ( &( /APPELLANT ) : ( )*&( / RESPONDENT ) &(+ / APPELLANT BY : NONE )*&(,+ / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI S.K. MADHUK - '.,/0 / DATE OF HEARING : 22.08.2013 123,/0 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 22.08.2013 $4% O R D E R PER SANJAY ARORA, A. M.: THIS IS AN APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-19, MUMBAI (CIT(A) FOR SH ORT) DATED 21.12.2011, DISMISSING THE ASSESSEES APPEAL CONTESTING ITS ASSESSMENT U/S .143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (THE ACT HEREINAFTER) FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR (A. Y.) 2007-08 VIDE ORDER DATED 09.11.2009. 2 ITA NO1638/MUM/2012 2. NONE APPEARED FOR AND ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE WHEN ITS APPEAL WAS CALLED FOR HEARING, EVEN AS THE PROOF OF SERVICE OF NOTICE OF HEARING IS ON RECORD. NONE HAVING APPEARED ON AN EARLIER DATE OF HEARING AS WELL, THE BENCH HAD ADJOURNMENT THE MATTER FOR TODAY, FURTHER DIRECTING FOR ISSUE OF NOTICE OF HEA RING PER REGISTERED POST. THERE IS EVEN NO POWER OF ATTORNEY OR LETTER OF AUTHORITY ON RECORD; NOR HAS THE ASSESSEE RECTIFIED THE DEFECT/S AS COMMUNICATED. UNDER CIRCUMSTANCES, THEREFORE, AS IT WOULD BE APPE AR TO US, THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED OR EARNEST IN PROSECUTING ITS INSTANT AP PEAL. IN THE CASE OF CIT V. B.N. BHATTARCHARYA [1979] 118 ITR 461 (SC), IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT AN APPEAL DOES NOT MEAN MERE FILING OF THE APPEAL MEMO, BUT EFFECTIVELY PUR SUING IT. SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY TOWARD THE SAME HAS BEEN EXTENDED TO THE ASSESSEE. WE, THE REFORE, FOLLOWING THE DECISION BY THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN CHEMIPOL VS. UNION OF INDIA IN CENTRAL EXCISE APPEAL NO. 62 OF 2009, AS ALSO BY THE HONBLE COURT IN THE CASE OF ESTATE OF LATE TUKOJIRAO HOLKAR VS. CWT (1997) 223 ITR 480 (MP), AS WELL AS BY THE TRIBUNA L (DELHI BENCH) IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. MULTIPLAN INDIA (P.) LTD ., REPORTED AT 38 ITD 320, DISMISS THE INSTANT APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE AS UN-ADMITTED FOR WANT OF P ROSECUTION. 3. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED IN LIMINE . 53/6#75/, 5,/89 ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON AUGUST 22, 20 13 SD/- SD/- (D. MANMOHAN) (SANJAY ARORA) / VICE PRESIDENT / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER - :. MUMBAI; ; DATED : 22.08.2013 '%< ROSHANI , SR. PS ! ' #$%& ' &$ % COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. &( / THE APPELLANT 2. )*&( / THE RESPONDENT 3. $$ - =/ > ? / THE CIT(A) 3 ITA NO1638/MUM/2012 4. $$ - =/ / CIT CONCERNED 5. !'@A) /B# $0B#3 - :. / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. A7C. % GUARD FILE ! ( / BY ORDER, )/(* + (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , - :. / ITAT, MUMBAI