JAI TRADING CO., MUMBAI V. ACIT 17(3), MUMBAI

ITA 1805/MUM/2009

• Counselvise Citation: [2009] 115 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2742 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 15-12-2009
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: J
• Assessment Year: 2000-2001
• Appeal Filed On: 19-03-2009
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: L K AGRAWAL
• Keywords: Condonation of delay

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL J BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI R.K. GUPTA (JM) & SHRI B. RAMAKOTAIAH ( AM) I.T.A. NO.1805/MUM/2009 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2000-01) M/S. JAI TRADING CO. 290, A-10, ANAND NAGAR, NR. GTB NAGAR, SION (EAST), MUMBAI 400 037 PAN NO.: - AABFJ 4311 N VS. A.C.I.T. 17(3), PIRAMAL CHAMBERS, PAREL, MUMBAI APPELLANT RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY: NONE RESPONDENT BY: SHRI L.K. AGRAWAL DATE OF HEARING: 03-12-09 DATE OF ORDER: 15-12-09 O R D E R PER B. RAMAKOTAIAH, A.M. THIS IS AN APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE AND IS DIRECTED A GAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A)-XXVII, MUMBAI, ORDER DATED 19/09/200 8 RELATING TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2000-2001. 2. THIS CASE WAS FIXED FOR HEARING ON 03.12.2009. I T WAS SEEN THAT THE NOTICE WAS ISSUED BY THE REGISTRY AT THE ADDRESS ME NTIONED IN ITEM 10 OF FORM NO. 36 BY THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, THE NOTICE WA S RETURNED BY THE POSTAL AUTHORITIES WITH THE POSTAL REMARK UNCLAIME D. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT TAKEN ANY STEPS TO INTIMATE THE CHANGE OF ADDRE SS IF ANY. THERE WAS CONDONATION OF DELAY INVOLVED AS THE APPEAL WAS FIL ED BELATEDLY AND NOBODY APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE WHEN THE NAME OF THE ITA 1805/MUM/09 M/S. JAI TRADING CO. (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2000-01) 2 ASSESSEE WAS CALLED. THESE ACTIONS ON THE PART OF T HE ASSESSEE SHOW THAT IT IS NOT INTERESTED IN PROSECUTING THE APPEAL FILE D BY IT. WE THEREFORE, RELYING ON THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF MULTIPLAN INDIA LIMITED 38 ITD 320 AND THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF TIKOJIRAO HOLKAR VS. CIT REPORTED IN 223 ITR 480 DISMISS THE APPEAL IN LIMINE . HOWEVER, IF THE ASSESSEE THROUGH PROPER APPLICATION CAN SATISFY THE TRIBUNAL FOR ITS NON-APPEARANCE ON THE APPOINTED DATE, THE TRIBUNAL MAY AT ITS DISCRETION RECALL THE ORDER. 3. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 15 TH DECEMBER, 2009. SD/- ( R K GUPTA) JUDICIAL MEMBER / SD/- (B. RAMAKOTAIAH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI, DATED 15 TH DECEMBER, 2009. NEELAM COPY TO: (1) THE APPELLANT, (2) THE RESPONDENT, (3) THE CIT (A) CONCERNED, (4) THE CIT, CONCERNED, (5) THE DR, CONCERNED BENCH - J, ITAT, MUMBAI. //TRUE COPY// BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, MUMBAI BENCHES, MUMBAI ITA 1805/MUM/09 M/S. JAI TRADING CO. (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2000-01) 3 DATE INITIALS DRAFT DICTATED ON 03. 12.2009 SR. P.S. DRAFT PLACED BEFORE THE AUTHOR 04.12.2009 SR. P.S . DRAFT PROPOSED AND PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER AM/JM DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED BY SECOND MEMBER AM/JM APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR. PS SR. P.S. KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT ON SR. P.S. FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK SR. P.S. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK DATE OF DISPATCH