JASWANTLAL J SHAH, MUMBAI V. DCIT CC-32, MUMBAI

ITA 2444/MUM/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 119 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9544 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 8 month(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-11-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: J
• Next Hearing Date: 25-11-2016
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 28-03-2011
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 143(3); 6

Judgement Text

, , , , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL J BENCH, MUMBAI . . , , ! '# ! '# ! '# ! '# , ,, , $ $ $ $ % % % % BEFORE SHRI R.S. SYAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER . / ITA NO. 2444/MUM./2011 ( $' ( )( / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 200607 ) MR. JASWANTLAL J. SHAH 60, BAPU KHOTE CROSS LANE MUMBAI 400 003 .. *+ / APPELLANT ' V/S DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE32, MUMBAI .... ,-*+ / RESPONDENT * . / PERMANENT ACCOUNT NUMBER AADPS2464H $' (/! 0 1 / ASSESSEE BY : NONE 0 1 / REVENUE BY : MR. MOHIT JAIN ' 0 ! / DATE OF HEARING 22.11.2012 ' 23) 0 ! / DATE OF ORDER 30.11.2012 ' ' ' ' / ORDER ! '# ! '# ! '# ! '# , ,, , $ $ $ $ 4 4 4 4 / PER AMIT SHUKLA, J.M. THE PRESENT APPEAL PREFERRED BY ASSESSEE, IS DIRECT ED AGAINST THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 3 RD JANUARY 2011, PASSED BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER ( APPEALS) XXXXI, MUMBAI, FOR THE QUANTUM OF ASSESSMENT PASSED UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (FOR SHORT THE ACT), FOR ASS ESSMENT YEAR 200607. 2. BEFORE US, WHEN THE CASE WAS CALLED FOR HEARING, NO NE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE DESPITE INTIMATION THROUGH NOTICE BOAR D. THERE IS NO APPLICATION MR. JASWANTLAL J. SHAH 2 SEEKING ADJOURNMENT EITHER. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANC ES, IT APPEARS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED IN PROSECUTING HIS APPEA L. 3. THE HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN M/S. CHEMI POL V/S UNION OF INDIA & ORS., IN CENTRAL EXCISE APPEAL NO.62 OF 2009, VIDE JUDGMENT DATED 17 TH SEPTEMBER 2009, WHILE CONSIDERING THE JUDGMENTS OF HON'BLE SU PREME COURT IN CIT V/S S. CHENIAPPA MUDALIAR, AIR 1969 SC 1068, SUNDERLAL MAN NALAL V/S NANDRAMDAS DWARKADAS, AIR 1958 MP 260, AND OTHER JUDGMENTS, OB SERVED AS FOLLOWS:- 6. WE CANNOT ALTOGETHER LOSE SIGHT OF THE RULE THAT EVERY COURT OR TRIBUNAL HAS AN INHERENT POWER TO DISMISS A PROC EEDING FOR NON- PROSECUTION WHEN THE PETITION / APPELLANT BEFORE IT DOES NOT WISH TO PROSECUTE THE PROCEEDINGS. IN SUCH A SITUATION, UNL ESS THE STATUTE CLEARLY REQUIRES THE COURT OR TRIBUNAL TO HEAR THE APPEAL / PROCEEDING AND DECIDE IT ON MERITS, IT CAN DISMISS THE APPEAL / PROCEEDING FOR. THE DELHI BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN M/S. MULTIPLAN INDIA PVT. LTD. (1991) 38 ITD 320 (DEL.), HAS HELD THAT IN A SIMILAR CIRCUMST ANCES, THE APPEAL MAY BE DISMISSED AS UNADMITTED. 4. APPLYING THE AFORESAID PROPOSITIONS LAID DOWN BY TH E HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT AS WELL AS THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL CITED SUPRA, WE TREAT THESE APPEAL AS UNADMITTED AND HOLD THE SAME AS LIABLE TO BE DI SMISSED AS SUCH. 5. / !5 $' (/! 0 / 0 ! 67 8 5. IN THE RESULT, ASSESSEES APPEAL IS DISMISSED. ' 0 3) 9 :'5 30 TH NOVEMBER 2012 3 0 ; 8 ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 30 TH NOVEMBER 2012 SD/- . .. . . . . . R.S. SYAL ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SD/- ! ! ! ! '# '# '# '# $ $ $ $ AMIT SHUKLA JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI, :' :' :' :' DATED: 30 TH NOVEMBER 2012 MR. JASWANTLAL J. SHAH 3 ' 0 ,$! < =<)! / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : (1) $' (/! / THE ASSESSEE; (2) / THE REVENUE; (3) > () / THE CIT(A); (4) > / THE CIT, MUMBAI CITY CONCERNED; (5)