ACNIELSEN ORG MARG, MUMBAI V. ADDL CIT RG 6(1), MUMBAI

ITA 3111/MUM/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 56106 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 7 month(s) 18 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 09-12-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Next Hearing Date: 07-12-2011
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 21-04-2010
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: P ARTH SARATHI NAIK
• Keywords: Non compliance

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH G, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI P.M. JAGTAP, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 3111/MUM/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006-07. ACNIELSEN ORG MARG P. LTD., ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, Z BLOCK, VOLTAS HOUSE, VS. RANGE-6(1), MUMBAI. 1 ST FLOOR, T.B. KADAM MARG, CHINCHPOKLI, MUMBAI 400 033. PAN AAACM 9279L APPELLANT. RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY : NONE. RESPONDENT BY: SHRI PARTH SARATHI NAIK. DATE OF HEARING : 07-12-2011. DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 09-12-2011. O R D E R. PER P.M. JAGTAP, A.M. : THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAI NST THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(APPEALS)-14, MUMBAI DATED 29-01-2010. 2. IN THIS CASE, HEARING WAS INITIALLY FIXED ON 21- 03-2011. THE ASSESSEE, HOWEVER, MOVED AN APPLICATION SEEKING ADJOURNMENT A ND ACCORDINGLY THE SAME WAS GRANTED BY THE BENCH. THEREAFTER THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE WAS POSTED FOR HEARING ON 03-10-2011 ON WHICH DATE THE ASSESSEE AGAIN SOUG HT ADJOURNMENT WHICH WAS GRANTED BY THE BENCH BY ADJOURNING THE HEARING TO 07-12-2011. ON 07-12-2011 NOBODY, HOWEVER, HAS APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSE SSEE AT THE TIME OF HEARING NOR 2 ITA NO.3111/MUM/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006-07 ANY APPLICATION SEEKING ADJOURNMENT HAS BEEN MOVED. IT APPEARS THAT THE ASSESSEE THUS IS NOT SERIOUSLY INTERESTED IN PROSECUTING THI S APPEAL FILED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 3. CONSIDERING THE FACTS NARRATED ABOVE AND KEEPING IN MIND THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 19(2) OF THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RULES AS CONSI DERED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. MULTIPLAN (INDIA) P. LTD. 38 ITD 3 20 (DEL.) AND BY HONBLE MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF LATE TUKOJ IRAO HOLKAR 223 ITR 480 (M.P.), THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS TREATED AS U NADMITTED AND DISMISS FOR NON PROSECUTION. THE ASSESSEE, IF SO ADVISED, SHALL BE FREE TO MOVE THE TRIBUNAL EXPLAINING THE REASONS FOR NON COMPLIANCE AND FOR R ECALLING OF THIS ORDER AND IF THE BENCH IS SO SATISFIED, THEN THIS ORDER MAY BE RECAL LED. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 9 TH DAY OF DEC.,2011. SD/- SD/- (VIJAY PAL RAO) (P.M. JA GTAP) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI, DATED : 9 TH DEC., 2011. WAKODE COPY TO : 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. C.I.T. 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, G-BENCH. 6. GUARD FILE. (TRUE COPY ) BY ORDER ASSTT. REGISTRAR, ITAT, MUMBAI.