RAGHUNATH S. SHETTY, MUMBAI V. ITO 23(3)(2), MUMBAI

ITA 2351/MUM/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 56240 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 8 month(s) 22 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 16-12-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 07-11-2012
• Assessment Year: 1998-1999
• Appeal Filed On: 25-03-2010
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PA RTHASARATHY NAIK
• Section: 2

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH D, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI J. SUDHAKAR REDDY, A.M. AND SHRI V. DUR GA RAO, J.M. ITA NO. 2351/MUM/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 1998-99 RAGHUNATH S. SHETTY, APPELLANT B7/13, BHANU APARTMENTS, OPP. M/S GABRIEL LIMITED, LBS MARG, MULUND (W), MUMBAI. (PAN AAFPS9199B) VS. INCOME-TAX OFFICER - 23(3)(2), RESPONDENT MUMBAI. APPELLANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY : MR. PARTHASARATHY NAIK DATE OF HEARING : 12/12/2011 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 16 /1 2/2011 ORDER PER V. DURGA RAO, J.M.: THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAIN ST THE ORDER OF CIT(A)- 33, MUMBAI, PASSED ON 15/01/2010 FOR THE AS SESSMENT YEAR 1998-99. 2. INITIALLY, THIS CASE WAS FIXED FOR HEARING ON 23 /12/2010. SINCE THE BENCH DID NOT FUNCTION ON THE APPOINTED DATES O F HEARING, I.E., ON 23/12/2011, 03/03/011 AND ON 05/05/2011, THE CASE W AS ADJOURNED TO 21/07/2011. ON 21/07/2011, NONE APPEARED ON BEHA LF OF THE ASSESSEE, THEREFORE, THE CASE WAS ADJOURNED TO 29/0 9/2011. SINCE THE BENCH DID NOT FUNCTION ON 29/09/2011, THE CASE ADJO URNED TO 12/12/2011. EVEN ON 12/12/2011, NONE APPEARED ON BE HALF OF THE ASSESSEE NOR THERE WAS ANY REQUEST FOR ADJOURNMENT. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED IN PROSECUTING HIS APPEAL. IT HAS BEEN HELD BY THE HONBLE SUPREME ITA NO. 2351/M/2010 MR. RAGHUNATH S. SHETTY 2 COURT IN THE CASE OF B.N. BHTTACHARGEE & ANR., 118 ITR 461 THAT APPEAL DOES NOT MEAN ONLY FILING OF MEMO OF APPEAL BUT ALSO PURSUING IT EFFECTIVELY. IN CASES WHERE THE ASSESSEE DOES N OT WANT TO PURSUE THE APPEAL, COURT/TRIBUNAL HAVE INHERENT POWER TO D ISMISS THE APPEAL FOR NON PROSECUTION AS HELD BY HONBLE HIGH COURT O F MUMBAI IN THE CASE OF M/S CHEMIPOL VS. UNION OF INDIA IN EXCISE A PPEAL NO. 62 OF 2009. THEREFORE, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISIO N OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF MULTIPLAN (INDIA) LTD., (38 ITD 320) AN D MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT IN LATE TUKOJIRAO HOLKAR (223 ITR 480), WE DISMISS THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION. 3. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DI SMISSED PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 16 TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2011. SD/- SD/- (J. SUDHAKAR REDDY) (V. DURGA RAO) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDI CIAL MEMBER MUMBAI, DATED: 16 TH DECEMBER, 2011 KV COPY TO:- 1) THE APPELLANT. 2) THE RESPONDENT. 3) THE CIT (A) CONCERNED. 4) THE CIT CONCERNED. 5) THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, D BENCH, I.T .A.T., MUMBAI. BY ORDER //TRUE COPY// ASST. REGISTRAR, I.T.A.T., MUMBAI.