BALKRISHNA INDUSTRIES LTD, MUMBAI V. ADDL CITY RG 6(1), MUMBAI

ITA 3163/MUM/2010

• Counselvise Citation: 316319914 RSA 2010
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 6 month(s) 25 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: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 23-04-2010
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: C G K NAIR
• Keywords: Non compliance

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH F, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI P.M. JAGTAP, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI R.S.PADVEKAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 3163/MUM/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2005-06. M/S BALKRISHNA INDUSTRIES LTD., ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF 418, CREATIVE INDUSTRIES LTD., VS. INCOME TAX, 72, N.M. JOSHI MARG, RANGE-6(1), MUMBAI 400 011. MUMBAI. PAN : AAACB 3333J. APPELLANT. RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY : NONE. RESPONDENT BY: SHRI C.G.K. NAIR. DATE OF HEARING : 08-11-2011. DATE OF PRONOUN CEMENT : 18-11-2011. 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 26-02-2010. 2. IN THIS CASE, HEARING WAS INITIALLY FIXED ON 07- 04-2011 AND NOTICE OF THE SAID HEARING SENT TO THE ASSESSEE BY RPAD WAS DULY SERVE D. ON 07-04-2011, THE BENCH DID NOT FUNCTION AND THE HEARING WAS ADJOURNED TO 0 7-06-2011. THE BENCH AGAIN DID NOT FUNCTION ON 07-06-2011 AS WELL AS ON 24-08- 2011 WHEN THE PRESENT CASE WAS ADJOURNED AND FIXED FOR HEARING. THE CASE, THER EFORE, WAS ADJOURNED AND FIXED FOR HEARING ON 08-11-2011. NOBODY, HOWEVER, HAS PUT IN APPEARANCE AT THE TIME OF HEARING FIXED ON 08-11-2011 NOR ANY APPLICATION FOR ADJOURNMENT HAS BEEN FILED 2 ITA NO.3163/MUM/2010 ASSTT. YEAR : 2005-06. INSPITE OF THE FACT THAT NOTICE OF THE SAID HEARING WAS DULY GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE WELL IN ADVANCE THROUGH NOTICE BOARD. IT APPEARS FR OM THIS NON-COMPLIANT AND NON- COOPERATIVE ATTITUDE OF THE ASSESSEE THAT IT IS NOT SERIOUSLY INTERESTED IN PROSECUTING THIS 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 DISMISSED 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 DA Y OF NOV., 2011. SD/- SD /- (R.S.PADVEKAR) (P.M. JAGTAP) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI, DATED: 18 TH NOV., 2011. WAKODE COPY TO : 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. C.I.T. 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, F-BENCH. 6. GUARD FILE. (TRUE COPY ) BY OR DER ASSTT. REGISTRAR, ITAT, MUMBAI.