M/S. INDAGE HOTELS LTD, MUMbai V. THE ACIT CIR 6(1), MUMBAI

ITA 2428/MUM/2008

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3593 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 year(s) 1 month(s) 28 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 06-06-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: I
• Next Hearing Date: 06-06-2013
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 08-04-2008
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL I BENCH, MUM BAI .. , !,#$ # % BEFORE SHRI B. R. MITTAL, JM AND SHRI SANJAY ARORA , AM ./ I.T.A. NO.2428/MUM/2008 ( ' ( )( ' ( )( ' ( )( ' ( )( / / / / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2004-05) INDAGE HOTELS LTD. 82, INDAGE HOUSE, DR. A. B. ROAD, WORLI, MUMBAI-400 018 ' ' ' ' / VS. THE ASST. CIT, CIRCLE 6(1), AAYKAR BHAVAN, M. K. ROAD, MUMBAI-400 020 * #$ ./ + ./ PAN/GIR NO. AAACB 5799 G ( *, / APPELLANT ) : ( -.*, / RESPONDENT ) *, / # / APPELLANT BY : NONE -.*, 0 / # / RESPONDENT BY : MS. NEERAJA PRADHAN ' 0 12$ / // / DATE OF HEARING : 06.06.2013 3 ) 0 12$ / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 06.06.2013 #4 / O R D E R PER SANJAY ARORA, A. M.: THIS IS AN APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE AGITATING THE ORD ER BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-VI, MUMBAI (CIT FOR SHORT) DATED 19.12 .2007, PARTLY ALLOWING THE ASSESSEES APPEAL CONTESTING ITS ASSESSMENT U/S. 14 3(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (THE ACT HEREINAFTER) FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR (AY) 2004 -05 VIDE ORDER DATED 31.10.2006. 2 ITA NO.2428/MUM/2008 (A.Y. 2004-05) INDAGE HOTELS LTD. VS. ASST. CIT 2. AS NOTICED FROM THE ORDER SHEET ENTRIES, THE ASS ESSEE INITIALLY FILED PETITION (VIDE LETTER DATED 26.11.2012) SEEKING ADJOURNMENT ON ACC OUNT OF ILLNESS OF SHRI SUNIL NAHTA, THE ASSESSEES COUNSEL AND, ACCORDINGLY, THE CASE W AS POSTED FOR HEARING ON 07.02.2013. THEREAFTER THE ASSESSEE AGAIN SOUGHT ADJOURNMENT (V IDE LETTER DATED 04.02.2013), STATING THAT THE PAPERS REQUIRED FOR THE PURPOSE OF HEARING ARE UNDER COMPILATION, REQUESTING FOR FURTHER TIME, WHICH WAS GRANTED, AND THE CASE POSTE D FOR 09.04.2013. THE BENCH NOT FUNCTIONING ON THIS DATE, THE HEARING STOOD ADJOURN ED TO 06.06.2013, I.E., TODAY INSTANT. HOWEVER, NONE APPEARED FOR AND ON BEHALF OF THE ASS ESSEE WHEN ITS APPEAL WAS CALLED OUT FOR HEARING, AND NEITHER ANY ADJOURNMENT APPLICATIO N STANDS RECEIVED. THIS APPEAL WAS FIXED FOR HEARING FOR THE FIRST TIME ON 11.05.2009, AND IS BEING ADJOURNED CONTINUOUSLY SINCE, AND APART FROM THE DATES ON WHICH THE BENCH DID NOT FUNCTION, ONLY AT THE REQUEST OF THE ASSESSEE-APPELLANT. UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES , IT APPEARS TO US THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT SERIOUS OR EARNEST IN PROSECUTING ITS APPEAL. I N THE CASE OF CIT V. B.N. BHATTARCHARYA [1979] 118 ITR 461 (SC), IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT AN A PPEAL DOES NOT MEAN MERE FILING OF THE APPEAL MEMO, BUT EFFECTIVELY PURSUING IT. WE, THERE FORE, FOLLOWING THE DECISIONS BY THE HONBLE MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF ESTATE OF LATE TUKOJIRAO HOLKAR VS. CWT (1997) 223 ITR 480 (MP) AND BY THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT DATED 17.09.2010 IN THE CASE OF CHEMIPOL VS. UNION OF INDIA IN CENTRAL EXCISE APPEAL NO. 62 OF 2009, AS WELL AS BY THE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH) IN T HE CASE OF CIT VS. MULTIPLAN INDIA (P.) LTD ., REPORTED AT 38 ITD 320, DISMISS THE INSTANT APPE AL BY THE ASSESSEE AS UNADMITTED FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION. 3. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED IN LIMINE 5 16 ' (51 0 $5 0 1 78 ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 06 TH JUNE, 2013 #4 0 3 ) $# 9'6 06 :' , 2013 0 ? SD/- SD/- (B. R. MITTAL) (SANJAY ARORA) / JUDICIAL MEMBER #$ / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI; 9' DATED : 06.06.2013 3 ITA NO.2428/MUM/2008 (A.Y. 2004-05) INDAGE HOTELS LTD. VS. ASST. CIT .'../ ROSHANI , SR. PS #4 0 -1@ A#@)1 #4 0 -1@ A#@)1 #4 0 -1@ A#@)1 #4 0 -1@ A#@)1/ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. *, / THE APPELLANT 2. -.*, / THE RESPONDENT 3. B ( ) / THE CIT(A) 4. B / CIT - CONCERNED 5. @E? -1' , , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. ?F( G / GUARD FILE #4' #4' #4' #4' / BY ORDER, H HH H/ // /7 7 7 7 (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , , , , / ITAT, MUMBAI