M/s. ROHA DYECHEM P. LTD., MUMBAI V. ACIT - 7(2), MUMBAI

ITA 2846/MUM/2006

• Counselvise Citation: [2010] 136 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7748 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 9 month(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 10-02-2010
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Next Hearing Date: 12-07-2010
• Assessment Year: 2002-2003
• Appeal Filed On: 08-05-2006
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: A P SINGH

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES F, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI D. MANMOHAN (V.P.) AND SHRI RAJENDRA SI NGH (A.M.) ITA NO.2846/MUM/2006 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2002-2003 ROHA DYECHEM P. LTD. A, 44-45, MIDC, 2ND STREET, MAROL, ANDHERI (E), MUMBAI 400 092. PAN : AAACR4974P VS. ACIT-7(2), AAYAKAR BHAVAN, MUMBAI 400 020. (APPLICANT) (RESPONDENT) APPLICANT BY : NONE. RESPONDENT BY : SHRI. A.P. SINGH O R D E R PER RAJENDRA SINGH THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST TH E ORDER DATED 28.02.2006 OF CIT (A)-VII, MUMBAI FOR THE ASSESSMEN T YEAR 2002-2003. 2. THE ASSESSEE IN THIS APPEAL HAS RAISED DISPUTE O N SEVERAL GROUNDS. BUT NO ONE APPEARED TO REPRESENT THE CASE WHEN THE APPEAL CAME UP FOR THE HEARING ON 08.02.2010, THOUGH THE ASSESSEE ON THE P REVIOUS DATE OF HEARING I.E. ON 24.12.2009 HAD BEEN INFORMED ABOUT THE NEXT DATE OF HEARING THROUGH THE NOTICE BOARD. WE ALSO FIND FROM THE R ECORD THAT THE ASSESSEE EARLIER HAD SOUGHT ADJOURNMENTS ON SEVERAL OCCASION S WHEN THE APPEAL HAD BEEN FIXED FOR HEARING. THIS TIME, NEITHER SOMEON E HAS APPEARED TO REPRESENT THE CASE NOR ANY ADJOURNMENT APPLICATION HAS BEEN RECEIVED. IT CAN THEREFORE BE REASONABLE CONCLUDED THAT ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED IN PROSECUTION OF THIS APPEAL. WE, THEREFORE, DISMIS S THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE AS UNADMITTED, FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF T RIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. MULTIPLAN INDIA PVT. LTD. 38 ITD 320 IN WHICH I T HAS BEEN HELD THAT APPEAL CAN BE DISMISSED FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION BY THE ASSESSEE. RECENTLY, HONBLE HIGH COURT OF MUMBAI IN THE CASE OF CHEMIPO L VS. UOI IN EXCISE ITA NO.2846/MUM/2006 A.Y. : 2002-2003 2 APPEAL NO.62 OF 2009 VIDE LETTER DATED 17.09.2009 H AVE HELD THAT EVERY COURT AND TRIBUNAL HAS AN INHERENT POWER TO DISMISS THE PROCEEDING FOR NON PROSECUTION WHEN THE PETITIONER/APPELLANT BEFORE IT DOES NOT WISH TO PROSECUTE THE PROCEEDINGS. IN THIS CASE, ON THE F ACTS OF THE CASE, WE ARE CONVINCED AS MENTIONED EARLIER THAT ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED IN PROSECUTING THIS APPEAL. WE, THEREFORE, DISMISS T HE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE AS UNADMITTED. 4. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE STANDS DIS MISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THIS DAY OF 10 TH FEBRUARY, 2010. SD/- (D. MANMOHAN) (VICE PRESIDENT) SD/- (RAJENDRA SINGH) (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) MUMBAI, DATED 10 TH FEBRUARY, 2010. JANHAVI COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-VII, MUMBA I 4. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CITY-VII, MUMBAI 5. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, BENCH F, MUMBAI //TRUE COPY// BY ORDER ASSTT. REGISTRAR, ITAT, MUMBAI ITA NO.2846/MUM/2006 A.Y. : 2002-2003 3 DATE INITIALS 1. DRAFT DICTATED ON 09-02-2010 PS 2. DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR 09-02-2010 PS 3. DRAFT PROPOSED & PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER AM/JM 4. DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED BY SECOND MEMBER AM/J M 5. APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR. PS PS 6. KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT ON PS 7. FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK PS 8. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK 9. DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER