DEVU TOOL P.LTD, MUMBAI V. ITO WD 8(1)(3), MUMBAI

ITA 2241/MUM/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 49255 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 3 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-06-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 19-03-2010
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R K JALAN

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D BENCH: MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI R.S. SYAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI R.S. PADVEKAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.2241/MUM /2010 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2004-05) DEVU TOOL P. LTD., GALA NO.2/3, RAMKRISHAN YADAV COMPOUND, L.T. NAGAR, SAKINAKA, MUMBAI -400 072 ....... APPELLANT VS ITO WD 8(1)(3), AAYAKAR BHAVAN, MUMBAI ..... RESPONDENT PAN: AAACD 8770 H APPELLANT BY: NONE RESPONDENT BY: SHRI R.K. JALAN O R D E R PER R.S. PADVEKAR, JM THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGING TH E IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE LD. CIT (A)-16 MUMBAI DATED 02.02.2010 FOR THE A.Y. 2002-03. 2. IN THIS CASE THE NOTICE OF HEARING HAS ALREADY B EEN SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE AND ON FIRST DATE OF POSTING OF HEARING DA TED 15.12.2010, ON THAT DATE THE ASSESSEES COUNSEL SOUGHT ADJOURNMENT . ON THE SECOND OCCASION DATED 31.01.2011, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE BENCH DID NOT FUNCTION. THE NOT ICE WAS GIVEN ON THE NOTICE BOARD AND THE CASE WAS FIXED FOR HEARING ON 27.6.2011 AND ON THAT DAY ALSO NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASS ESSEE AND DID NOT FILE EVEN AN APPLICATION FOR THE ADJOURNMENT. WE AR E, THEREFORE, OF THE OPINION THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED IN PROS ECUTING THE APPEAL. WE, THEREFORE, FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE HONBL E HIGH COURT OF ITA 2241/MUM/2010 DEVU TOOL P. LTD. 2 MADHYA PRADESH IN THE CASE OF TUKOJIRAO HOLKAR VS. CWT (223 ITR 480)(MP) AS WELL AS THE DECISION OF THE ITAT DELHI BENCH IN THE CASE OF MULTIPLAN (INDIA) PVT. LTD. (38 ITD 320)(DEL) DISMI SS THE APPEAL AS NON-ADMITTED. 3. IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. B. N. BHATTACHARGEE & ANO THER, (1979) 118 ITR 461 (SC), THEIR LORDSHIPS OF SUPREME COURT AT PAGE 477-78 HAS HELD THAT THE APPEAL DOES NOT MERELY MEAN FILIN G OF THE MEMO OF APPEAL BUT EFFECTIVELY PURSUING THE SAME. WE, THERE FORE, CONSTRAINED TO PRESUME THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED IN PURS UING THE APPEAL. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE ASSESSEES APPEAL STANDS DIS MISSED IN LIMINE. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS DAY OF 3 0TH JUNE 2011. SD/- SD/- ( R.S. SYAL ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ( R.S. PADVEKAR ) JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI, DATE: 30TH JUNE 2011 COPY TO:- 1) THE APPELLANT. 2) THE RESPONDENT. 3) THE CIT (A)16, MUMBAI. 4) THE CIT-VIII, MUMBAI. 5) THE D.R. D BENCH, MUMBAI. BY ORDER / / TRUE COPY / / ASSTT. REGISTRAR I.T.A.T., MUMBAI *CHAVAN ITA 2241/MUM/2010 DEVU TOOL P. LTD. 3 SR.N. EPISODE OF AN ORDER DATE INITIALS CONCERNED 1 DRAFT DICTATED ON 27.06.2011 SR.PS 2 DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR 27.06.2011 SR.PS 3 DRAFT PROPOSED & PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER JM/AM 4 DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED BY SECOND MEMBER JM/AM 5 APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.PS/PS SR.PS/PS 6 KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT ON SR.PS/PS 7 FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK SR.PS/PS 8 DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK 9 DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER