R. MAHENDRA & CO., MUMBAI V. ITO 16(3)(2), MUMBAI

ITA 2129/MUM/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2010] 135 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3718 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-12-2010
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Assessment Year: 2001-2002
• Appeal Filed On: 17-03-2010
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: JI TENDRA YADAV

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES, D, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI R.S.SYAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 2129/MUM/2010 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2001-02) M/S R MAHENDRA AND CO. 219, SHRIJI CHAMBERS, TATA ROAD NO.2, OPERA HOUSE, MUMBAI-400004. PAN: AAAFR1827N . APPELLANT VS INCOME TAX OFFICER 16(3)(2), MUMBAI RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY : SHRI JITENDRA YAD AV. O R D E R PER VIJAY PAL RAO,JM THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST T HE ORDER DATED 15.1.2010 OF CIT(A)-XXVII, MUMBAI FOR T HE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02. 2. THIS APPEAL WAS FILED ON17/03/2010 AND WAS PLACE D ON BOARD FOR HEARING ON 13/12/2010. NOTICE OF THIS HE ARING WAS SENT TO THE ASSESSEE ON THE ADDRESS GIVEN IN FORM N O.36. NEITHER THE NOTICE NOR THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT RECEIVED BACK IN THE OFFICE OF THE TRIBUNAL. ON 13.12.2010, NOBODY APPEARED BEFORE US NOR ANY APPLICATION FOR SEEKING ADJOURNM ENT IS RECEIVED FROM THE ASSESSEE. IN VIEW OF THIS FACTUA L POSITION, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT SERI OUSLY INTERESTED IN PROSECUTING THE APPEAL FILED BY IT. T HEREFORE, WE ITA NO. 2129/MUM/2010 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2001-02) 2 HAVE NO OTHER ALTERNATIVE BUT TO DISPOSE OF THE APP EAL BY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. MULTIPLAN INDIA (P) LTD., REPORTED IN 38 ITD 320 (D EL); AS ALSO THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COU RT IN THE CASE OF ESTATE OF LATE TUKOJIRAO HOLKAR VS. CWT, RE PORTED IN 223 ITR 480 (MP). ACCORDINGLY, WE TREAT THIS APPE AL AS UNADMITTED. 3. HOWEVER, WE MAY MENTION THAT IN CASE THE ASSESSE E DESIRES TO PROSECUTE THE APPEAL, IT SHALL BE FREE TO MOVE THIS TRIBUNAL BY APPROPRIATE PETITION FOR RECALLING THE ORDER AND IF THE BENCH IS SO SATISFIED ABOUT THE REASONS FOR DEF AULT, THEN THIS ORDER SHALL BE RECALLED SO AS TO TREAT THIS AP PEAL AS ADMITTED. 4. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE STANDS DIS MISSED FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION. THIS IS SO PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT AT THE TIME OF HEARING ITSELF I.E. ON 13.12.2010. SD SD (R.S.SYAL) (VIJ AY PAL RAO) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI, ON THIS 14 TH DAY OF DEC, 2010 SRL:141210 COPY TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT CONCERNED 4. CIT(A) CONCERNED 5. DR CONCERNED BENCH BY ORDER TRUE COPY ASSTT. REGISTRAR, ITAT, MUMBAI