CHIRANJEEV PURSHOTTAM, MUMBAI V. DCIT CIR 8(3), MUMBAI

ITA 2778/MUM/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 70678 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 3 month(s) 18 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-08-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 07-08-2013
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 24-04-2012
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: C TRIPURA SUNDARI

Judgement Text

, INCOME TAX APPELLATE TR IBUNAL C BENCH,MUMBAI. . . , ! , BEFORE S/SH.B.R.MITTAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND RAJENDRA,ACCOUNTANT MEMBER . I.TA. NO.2778/MUM/2012- # -%. AY . 2006-07 SH.CHIRANJEEV PUROSHOTTAM,SHOP NO.1 NANDPREM SHOPPING CENTER,NEHRU RD, VILE PARLE(E)MUMBAI 400057. PAN: AEAPP 8078D VS. DCIT,CIRCLE 8(3) MUMBAI. ( &' / APPELLANT ) ( ()&' / RESPONDENT ) &' * / APPELLANT BY : NONE ()&' + * /RESPONDENT BY : MS.C.TRIPURA SUNDARI , + -. / DATE OF HEARING : 12 -08-2013 /0% + -. / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 12 -08-2013 1 / O R D E R PER RAJENDRA, AM TWO GROUNDS OF APPEAL WERE FILED BY THE APPELLANT A GAINST THE ORDER DATED 09-02-2012 OF THE CIT(A)-18,MUMBAI. 2. CASE WAS FIXED FOR HEARING ON 07.08.2013.ASSESSEE F ILED AN APPLICATION FOR ADJOURNMENT. ACCORDINGLY, MATTER WAS ADJOURNED TO 12.08.2013 AND HE WAS INFOR MED ON THAT DAY ABOUT THE NEXT DATE OF HEARING.BUT,TODAY,NO ONE APPEARED ON B EHALF OF ASSESSEE.NOR THERE IS ANY APPLICATION FOR ADJOURNMENT. IN VIEW OF ABOVE, IT A PPEARS THAT ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED IN PROSECUTING THIS APPEAL. HENCE THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS LIABLE TO BE DISMISSED FOR NON- PROSECUTION. IN THIS REGARD, WE ARE SUPPORTED BY T HE DECISION IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. B.N. BHATTACHARGEE AND ANOTHER, REPORTED IN 118 ITR 460 (RELEVANT PAGES 477 & 478) WHEREIN THEIR LORDSHIPS HAVE HELD THAT: THE APPEAL DOES NOT MEAN MERELY FILING OF THE AP PEAL BUT EFFECTIVELY PURSUING IT. 3. IN THIS REGARD WE ARE ALSO SUPPORTED BY THE DECISI ON IN THE CASE OF CIT VS MULTIPLAN INDIA (P) LTD., 38 ITD 320 (DEL). 4. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, AND ALSO CONSIDERING THE PRO VISION OF RULE 19 OF THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RULES, 1963, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DIS MISSED. 5. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED FOR NON- PROSECUTION. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 12 TH AUGUST, 2013. 1 + /0% 2 3- 3- 3- 3- 12 1212 12 . 08 0808 08. .. .2013 2013 2013 2013 0 + 3. I.TA. NO. 2778/MUM/2012 SH.CHIRANJEEV PUROSHOTTAM 2 SD/- SD/- ( . . / B.R. MITTAL ) ( ! ! ! ! / RAJENDRA ) / JUDICIAL MEMBER / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI, :, DATE: 12 TH AUGUST, 2013 SK 1 + (-; < ;%- 1 + (-; < ;%- 1 + (-; < ;%- 1 + (-; < ;%- / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. , =- /APPELLANT 2. ()&' /RESPONDENT 3. > ? /THE CONCERNED CIT (A) 4. > ? /THE CONCERNED CIT 5. ;@3 (-, , /DR C BENCH, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. 3 B /GUARD FILE );- (- //TRUE COPY// 1, 1, 1, 1, / BY ORDER, C CC C / D D D D DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR , / ITAT, MUMBAI