KALSARIA DIAMONDS P. LTD, MUMBAI V. ADDL CIT RG 5(2), MUMBAI

ITA 1783/MUM/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 70941 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 5 month(s) 22 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 05-09-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 02-06-2015
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 14-03-2012
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SURINDER JIT SINGH

Judgement Text

, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH, MUMBAI . . , . ! , '# ' $ BEFORE SHRI I.P. BANSAL, JM AND SHRI SANJAY ARO RA, AM ./ I.T.A. NO. 1783/MUM/2012 ( % % % % & & & & / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09 M/S.KALSARIA DIAMONDS PVT. LTD., SHOP NO.5, PRITI APTS., KHANDWALA LANE, MALAD (EAST), MUMBAI- 97. % % % % / VS. THE ADDL. CIT, RANGE 5(2), MUMBAI. ' '# ./ ( ./ PAN/GIR NO. : AADCK 1265F ( ') / APPELLANT ) .. ( *+') / RESPONDENT ) ') , '/ APPELLANT BY NONE *+') 7 , ' /RESPONDENT BY SHRI SURINDER JIT SINGH % 7 8# / DATE OF HEARING : 05/09/2013 9 & 7 8# / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 05/09/2013 ': / O R D E R PER I.P.BANSAL,J.M: THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. IT IS D IRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY LD. CIT(A)-9, MUMBAI DATED 24/10/2011 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09. 2. EARLIER THIS APPEAL WAS FIXED FOR HEARING ON 21 /3/2013, WHEN NOBODY ATTENDED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE, THEREFORE, AS P ER DIRECTIONS OF THE TRIBUNAL THE MATTER WAS ADJOURNED TO 05/09/2013 AND NOTICE WAS DIRECTED TO BE ISSUED THROUGH RPAD. ACCORDINGLY, NOTICE WAS SENT THROUGH RPAD AT THE ADDRESS GIVEN ./ I.T.A. NO. 1783/MUM/2012 ( % % % % & & & & / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09 2 IN FORM NO.36. HOWEVER, THE SAID NOTICE WAS RECEI VED BACK FROM THE POSTAL AUTHORITIES WITH THE REMARK UNCLAIMED -RETURN TO S ENDER. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT INTIMATED ANY CHANGE OF ADDRESS TO THE REGISTRY. A DJOURNMENT APPLICATION HAS ALSO NOT BEEN FILED. THEREFORE, IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WE PRESUME THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED IN PRO SECUTING THIS APPEAL. FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL REPORTED IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. MULTIPLAN INDIA (P) LTD.38 ITD 320 (DEL) AND THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF ESTATE OF LATE TUK OJIRAO HOLKAR VS. CWT, 223 ITR 480 (M.P) WE DISMISS THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSE SSEE IN LIMINE. 3. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 05/ 09/2013 . ': 7 & #' ; <%= 05/09/2013 7 > SD/- SD/- ( SANJAY ARORA) (I.P.BANSAL) /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER '# /JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI; <% DATED 05/09/2013 ': ': ': ': 7 77 7 *8?@ *8?@ *8?@ *8?@ A'@&8 A'@&8 A'@&8 A'@&8 / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. ') / THE APPELLANT 2. *+') / THE RESPONDENT. 3. B ( ) / THE CIT(A)- 4. B / CIT 5. @C> *8% , , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. >D E / GUARD FILE. ':% ':% ':% ':% / BY ORDER, +@8 *8 //TRUE COPY// F FF F / G G G G (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, MUMBAI . % . SR. PS-VM