NODE INFOTECH P. LTD, NAVI MUMBAI V. ITO 10(3)(4), MUMBAI

ITA 3145/MUM/2010

• Counselvise Citation: 314519914 RSA 2010
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 6 month(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-11-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Next Hearing Date: 08-11-2011
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 22-04-2010
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: C G K NAIR

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL F BENCH: MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI P.M. JAGTAP, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI R.S. PADVEKAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.3145/MUM/2010 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-07) M/S. NODE INFOTECH PRIVATE LIMITED, 310, 3RD FLOOR, BUILDING 2, (A-3), SECTOR 1, MILLENIUM BUSINESS PARK, MAHAPE, NAVI MUMBAI -400 701 ....... APPELLANT VS ITO 10(3)(4), AAYAKAR BHAVAN, MUMBAI -400 020 ..... RESPONDENT PAN: AAACN 9276 C APPELLANT BY: NONE RESPONDENT BY: SHRI C.G.K. NAIR DATE OF HEARING: 08.11.2011 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 18.11.2011 O R D E R PER R.S. PADVEKAR, JM THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGING TH E IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE LD. CIT (A)-22 MUMBAI DATED 16.12.2009 FOR THE A.Y. 2006-07. WHEN THIS APPEAL WAS CALLED FOR HEARING, THE LD. D.R. FOR THE REVENUE WAS PRESENT BUT NONE WAS PRESENT FOR TH E ASSESSEE. ON THE PERUSAL OF THE RECORD, IT IS SEEN THAT THE NOTI CE WAS SENT TO ASSESSEE BY REGISTERED POST AD AS PER ADDRESS GIVE N IN FORM NO.36 BUT THE SAME WAS RETURNED BACK BY THE POSTAL AUTHOR ITIES WITH THE ENDORSEMENT THAT ON THE GIVEN ADDRESS THE ASSESSEE- COMPANY WAS NOT IN EXISTENCE. THE ASSESSEES CASE WAS FURTHER LIST ED FOR HEARING ON 7.6.2011 AND 24.8.2011 THROUGH THE NOTICE ON THE NO TICE BOARD. MOREOVER, NOW THE CAUSE-LIST IS ALSO AVAILABLE ON T HE OFFICIAL WEBSITE OF THE ITAT. NO OTHER ADDRESS IS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. WE, THEREFORE, OF ITA 3145/MUM/2010 M/S. NODE INFOTECH PRIVATE LIMITED 2 THE OPINION THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED IN PROSECUTING THE PRESENT APPEAL. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT EVEN BOTHERED TO FILE A NEW ADDRESS, IF ANY. 2. IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. B. N. BHATTACHARGEE & AN OTHER, (1979) 118 ITR 461 (SC), THEIR LORDSHIPS OF SUPREME COURT AT PAGE 477-78 HAS HELD THAT THE APPEAL DOES NOT MERELY MEAN FILIN G OF THE MEMO OF APPEAL BUT EFFECTIVELY PURSUING THE SAME. WE, THERE FORE, CONSTRAINED TO PRESUME THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED IN PURS UING THE APPEAL. 3. IN THE RESULT, THE ASSESSEES APPEAL STANDS DIS MISSED IN LIMINE. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS DAY OF 1 8TH NOVEMBER 2011. SD/- SD/- ( P.M. JAGTAP ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ( R.S. PADVEKAR ) JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI, DATE : 18TH NOVEMBER, 2011 COPY TO:- 1) THE APPELLANT. 2) THE RESPONDENT. 3) THE CIT (A)- 22, MUMBAI. 4) THE CIT-10, MUMBAI. 5) THE D.R. F BENCH, MUMBAI. BY ORDER / / TRUE COPY / / ASSTT. REGISTRAR I.T.A.T., MUMBAI *CHAVAN ITA 3145/MUM/2010 M/S. NODE INFOTECH PRIVATE LIMITED 3 SR.N. EPISODE OF AN ORDER DATE INITIALS CONCERNED 1 DRAFT DICTATED ON 18.10.2011 SR.PS 2 DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR 21.10.2011 SR.PS 3 DRAFT PROPOSED & PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER JM/AM 4 DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED BY SECOND MEMBER JM/AM 5 APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.PS/PS SR.PS/PS 6 KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT ON SR.PS/PS 7 FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK SR.PS/PS 8 DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK 9 DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER