SHRI GOPALRAM JAKHAD, MUMBAI V. THE ITO 24(1)4, MUMBAI

ITA 2221/MUM/2008

• Counselvise Citation: [2010] 136 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1125 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 3 month(s) 14 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 16-07-2010
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Next Hearing Date: 06-07-2010
• Assessment Year: 2002-2003
• Appeal Filed On: 02-04-2008
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ANURAG PRASAD

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH G, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI J. SUDHAKAR REDDY, AM AND SHRI V. DURG A RAO, JM I.T.A.NO. 2221/MUM/2008 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2002-03 SHRI GOPALRAM JAKHAD, 501, SHREE VALLABH APARTMENT, OPP.DHIRAJ POOJA, CHINCHOLI ROAD, MALAD ROAD, MUMBAI 400 064 PAN: AADPJ 0493 M VS. THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER-24(1)4, C-13,5 TH FLOOR, PRATYAKSHAKAR BHAVAN, BKC, BANDRA (E), MUMBAI 400 051. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY : SHRI ANURAG PRASAD O R D E R PER J. SUDHAKAR REDDY, AM: THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAI NST THE ORDER DATED 10.07.2007 OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(APPEAL S)-XXIV, MUMBAI, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03. 2. THIS APPEAL WAS FIRST FIXED FOR HEARING ON 22.05 .09 BUT ADJOURNED TO 27.7.2009, 15.09.2009, 26.10.2009, 16.12.2009, 10.2 .2010, 03.04.2010 AND 18.05.2010 FOR THE REASON THAT THE BENCH DID NOT F UNCTION OR AT THE REQUEST OF THE ASSESSEES COUNSEL. ON 08.05.2010 THE HEARING WAS ADJOURNED TO 06.07.2010 AS THE BENCH DID NOT FUNCTION AND THE PARTIES WERE INF ORMED THROUGH NOTICE BOARD. WHEN THE CASE WAS CALLED FOR HEARING ON 06.07.2010, NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE OR THERE WAS ANY APPLICATION FOR ADJOU RNMENT. THEREFORE, WE PRESUME THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED IN PURS UING ITS APPEAL. ACCORDINGLY, BY APPLYING THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE DELHI BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF CIT V. MULTIPLAN INDIA PVT. LTD. (1991) 38 ITD 320 (DEL.) AND THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF LATE TUKOJ IRAO HOLKAR V. CWT (1997) 223 ITR 480(MP), THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE I S DISMISSED AS UNADMITTED FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION BY THE ASSESSEE. WE MAY ALSO ME NTION THAT THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CHEMIPOL V. UOI, IN CENTR AL EXCISE APPEAL NO. 62 OF 2009 DECIDED ON 17.09.2009 HELD AS UNDER: ITA NO.2221/M/08 SHRI GOPALRAM JAKHAD 2 WE CANNOT ALTOGETHER LOSE SIGHT OF THE RULE THAT EV ERY COURT OR TRIBUNAL HAS AN INHERENT POWER TO DISMISS A PROCEED ING FOR NON- PROSECUTION WHEN THE PETITIONER/APPELLANT BEFORE IT DOES NOT WISH TO PROSECUTE THE PROCEEDING. IN SUCH A SITUATION UNLES S THE STATUTE CLEARLY REQUIRES THE COURT OR TRIBUNAL TO HEAR THE APPEAL/PROCCEEDING AND DECIDE IT ON MERITS IT CAN DISMISS APPEAL/PROCE EDING FOR. 2. IN THE FACTS OF THE CASE, THE APPEAL FILED BY TH E ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THIS 16 TH DAY OF JULY, 2010. SD. SD. (V. DURGA RAO) (J. SUDHAKAR REDDY) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI, DATED THE 16 TH JULY, 2010. KN COPY TO: 1. THE ASSESSEE 2. THE ITO-24(1)(4), MUMBAI 3. THE CIT -24, MUMBAI. 4. THE CIT(A)-XXIV, MUMBAI 5. THE DR G BENCH, MUMBAI BY ORDER /TRUE COPY/ ASST. REGISTRAR, ITAT, MUMBAI