V.R. KAUNDINYA, MUMBAI V. DCIT 26(2), MUMBAI

ITA 2912/MUM/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 62165 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 17-04-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Next Hearing Date: 17-04-2012
• Assessment Year: 2001-2002
• Appeal Filed On: 13-04-2011
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI MUMBAI MUMBAI MUMBAI F F F F BENCH BENCH BENCH BENCH MUMBAI BENCHES, MUMBAI MUMBAI BENCHES, MUMBAI MUMBAI BENCHES, MUMBAI MUMBAI BENCHES, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI BEFORE SHRI BEFORE SHRI BEFORE SHRI R S SYAL, AM & R S SYAL, AM & R S SYAL, AM & R S SYAL, AM & SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM ITA NO. ITA NO. ITA NO. ITA NO. 2912/MUM/2011 2912/MUM/2011 2912/MUM/2011 2912/MUM/2011 (ASST YEAR (ASST YEAR (ASST YEAR (ASST YEAR 2001 2001 2001 2001- -- -02) 02) 02) 02) V R KAUNDINYA 216 T V INDL. ESTATE OFF A B ROAD, WORLI, MUMBAI VS THE DY COMMR OF INCOME TAX 26(2), MUMBAI (APPELLANT (APPELLANT (APPELLANT (APPELLANT ) )) ) (RESPONDENT) (RESPONDENT) (RESPONDENT) (RESPONDENT) PAN NO. PAN NO. PAN NO. PAN NO. AAEPK5832C AAEPK5832C AAEPK5832C AAEPK5832C ASSESSEE BY NONE REVENUE BY SHRI M RAJAN DT.OF HEARING 17 TH APRIL 2012 DT OF PRONOUNCEMENT 17 TH ,APRIL 2012 ORDER ORDER ORDER ORDER PER VIJAY PAL RAO, JM PER VIJAY PAL RAO, JM PER VIJAY PAL RAO, JM PER VIJAY PAL RAO, JM THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAIN ST THE ORDER DATED 25 TH JAN 2011 OF THE CIT(A) FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 20 01-02. 2 IN THIS CASE, THE DATE OF HEARING ON 17 TH APRIL 2012 HAS ALREADY BEEN INFORMED TO BOTH THE PARTIES AND SAME HAS BEEN NOTE D BY THEM IN THE FILE. DESPITE THE SAME, NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE AS SESSEE. IT APPEARS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED IN THE PROSECUTION OF TH E CASE. WE FIND THAT THE RATIO EMANATING FROM THE DECISION RENDERED BY HONBLE MAD HYA PRADESH HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF LATE TUKOJIRAO HOLKAR VS. COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX 223 ITR 480 AND THE TRIBUNAL DECISION IN CIT VS. MULTIPLAN INDI A LIMITED 38 ITD 320 IS THAT THE APPEAL CAN BE DISMISSED FOR NON-PROSECUTION. HENCE , FOLLOWING THE PRECEDENT, WE DISMISS THIS APPEAL FOR NON-PROSECUTION IN LIMINE. V R KAUNDINYA 2 3 HOWEVER, IF THE ASSESSEE THROUGH PROPER APPLICATI ON CAN SATISFY THE TRIBUNAL FOR SUCH NON APPEARANCE ON THE DATE OF HEA RING, THE TRIBUNAL MAY AT ITS DISCRETION RECALL THIS ORDER. 4 IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE I S DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT AT THE TIME OF HEARING I.E. ON 17 ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT AT THE TIME OF HEARING I.E. ON 17 ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT AT THE TIME OF HEARING I.E. ON 17 ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT AT THE TIME OF HEARING I.E. ON 17 TH THTH TH APRIL 2012 APRIL 2012 APRIL 2012 APRIL 2012 SD/ SD/- ( ( ( ( R S SYAL R S SYAL R S SYAL R S SYAL ) ) ) ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ( VIJAY PAL RAO ) ( VIJAY PAL RAO ) ( VIJAY PAL RAO ) ( VIJAY PAL RAO ) JUDICIAL MEMBER PLACE: MUMBAI : DATED: 17 TH , APRIL 2012 RAJ* RAJ* RAJ* RAJ* COPY FORWARDED TO: 1 APPELLANT 2 RESPONDENT 3 CIT 4 CIT(A) 5 DR /TRUE COPY/ BY ORDER DY /AR, ITAT, MUMBAI