M/S. JAYANT OIL MILLS P. LTD, V. THE ITO WD 6(3)(2),

ITA 3164/MUM/2004

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 134 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7979 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 year(s) 10 month(s) 24 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-03-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 06-04-2010
• Assessment Year: 2000-2001
• Appeal Filed On: 29-04-2004
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SHRAVAN KUMAR

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH: MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI J. SUDHAKAR REDDY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI R.S. PADVEKAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.3164/MUM/2004 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2000-01) M/S. JAYANT OIL MILLS PVT. LTD., 13 SITAFALWADI, DR. MASCARENHAS ROAD, POST BOX : 6209, MAZGAON, MUMBAI -400 010 ASSESSEE VS INCOME-TAX OFFICER WARD6(3)(2), AAYAKAR BHAVAN, M.K. ROAD, MUMBAI-400 020 REVENUE PAN: AAACJ 1204 C ASSESSEE BY: NONE REVENUE BY: SHRI SHRAVAN KUMAR 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)- 24, MUMBAI DATED 29.01.2004 FOR THE A.Y. 2000-01. 2. THIS APPEAL WAS FIXED FOR HEARING ON 16.03.2011. THE LD. D.R. FOR THE DEPARTMENT SHRI SHRAVAN KUMAR WAS PRESENT AND N ONE WAS PRESENT FOR THE ASSESSEE DESPITE SERVICE OF NOTICE THROUGH NOTICE ON 27.12.2010. ITA 3164/M/2004 M/S. JAYANT OIL MILLS PVT. LTD. 2 3. AS PER THE RECORD, IT IS SEEN THAT BOTH THE PART IES HAVE BEEN INFORMED ABOUT THE DATE OF HEARING. IN SPITE OF DU E SERVICE OF THE NOTICE, ASSESSEE DID NOT REMAIN PRESENT NOR FILED AN APPLIC ATION FOR THE ADJOURNMENT. WE ARE THEREFORE OF THE OPINION THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED IN PROSECUTING THE APPEAL. WE, THEREFOR E, FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADES H IN THE CASE OF TUKOJIRAO HOLKAR VS. CWT (223 ITR 480)(MP) AS WELL AS THE DECISION OF THE ITAT DELHI BENCH IN THE CASE OF MULTIPLAN (INDI A) PVT. LTD. (38 ITD 320)(DEL) DISMISS THE APPEAL AS NON-ADMITTED. 4. IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. B. N. BHATTACHARGEE & ANO THER, (1979) 118 ITR 461 (SC), THEIR LORDSHIPS OF SUPREME COURT AT P AGE 477-78 HAS HELD THAT THE APPEAL DOES NOT MERELY MEAN FILING OF THE MEMO OF APPEAL BUT EFFECTIVELY PURSUING THE SAME. WE, THEREFORE, CONST RAINED TO PRESUME THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED IN PURSUING THE APPE AL. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE ASSESSEES APPEAL STANDS DISM ISSED IN LIMINE. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS DAY O F 23RD MARCH 2011. SD/- SD/- ( J. SUDHAKAR REDDY ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ( R.S. PADVEKAR ) JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI, DATE: 23RD MARCH 2011 COPY TO:- 1) THE APPELLANT. 2) THE RESPONDENT. 3) THE CIT (A) 26, MUMBAI. 4) THE CIT, CITY-6, MUMBAI. 5) THE D.R. A BENCH, MUMBAI. BY ORDER / / TRUE COPY / / ASSTT. REGISTRAR *CHAVAN I.T.A.T., MUMBAI ITA 3164/M/2004 M/S. JAYANT OIL MILLS PVT. LTD. 3 SR.N. EPISODE OF AN ORDER DATE INITIALS CONCERNED 1 DRAFT DICTATED ON 16.03.2011 SR.PS 2 DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR 16.03.2011 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