PIYUSH KISHANLAL MEGHANI, MUMBAI V. ITO WD 16(2)(3), MUMBAI

ITA 3291/MUM/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 59927 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 10 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-03-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 20-03-2012
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 27-04-2010
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R S SRIVASTAVA

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES C, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI RAJENDRA SINGH, A.M. AND SHRI V.D. RAO , J.M. ITA NO. : 3291/MUM/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006-07 MR. PIYUSH KISHANLAL MEGHANI MEGHANI GREEN VILLA 18.20, PANDITA RAMABAI ROAD GAMDEVI MUMBAI-400 007. PAN NO: AALPM 8808 P INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD -16(2)(3) MUMBAI. (APPELLANT) VS. (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY : SHRI R.S. SRIVASTAVA DATE OF HEARING : 20.3.2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 20.3.2012 O R D E R PER RAJENDRA SINGH (AM) THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER D ATED 10.2.2010 OF CIT(A) FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. T HE ASSESSEE IN THIS APPEAL HAS DISPUTED THE ADDITION MADE UNDER SE CTION 69A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. NO ONE APPEARED BEFORE US TO REPRESENT THE CASE ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE WHEN THE APPEAL CAME UP FOR HEARI NG TODAY (I.E. 20.3.2012), THOUGH THE NOTICE OF HEARING HAD BEEN GI VEN WELL IN ADVANCE. IT IS ALSO NOTICED FROM THE RECORD THAT EARLIE R ALSO NO ONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE AT THE TIME OF HEARI NG OF THE APPEAL AND CASE HAD BEEN ADJOURNED TO PROVIDE FURTHER OPPORTUNITY. ITA NO. 3291/M/10 A.Y.06-07 2 THIS TIME NEITHER SOME ONE HAS APPEARED NOR ADJOURNMEN T APPLICATION HAS BEEN RECEIVED. IT CAN THEREFORE, BE REASONABLY CONCL UDED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED IN PROSECUTING THE APPEAL. THE A PPEAL DOES NOT MEAN ONLY FILING OF MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL BUT AL SO PURSUING IT EFFECTIVELY AS HELD BY HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN CASE OF B.N. BHATACHARJEE AND ANR. (118 ITR 461) (AT PAGES 477/478 ). IN SUCH CASES WHERE AN APPELLANT IS NOT INTERESTED IN PROSECUTION OF APPEAL COURT/TRIBUNAL HAVE INHERENT POWER TO DISMISS THE PRO CEEDINGS FOR NON-PROSECUTION AS HELD BY HONBLE HIGH COURT OF MUMBAI IN CASE OF M/S. CHEMIPOL VS. UNION OF INDIA IN EXCISE APPEAL NO.6 2/2009. ON THE FACTS OF THIS CASE WE ARE CONVINCED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT I NTERESTED IN PURSUING THE APPEAL. WE, THEREFORE, DISMISS THE APP EAL OF THE ASSESSEE AS UNADMITTED. 2. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE STANDS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 20.3.2012. SD/- SD/- (V.D. RAO) JUDICIAL MEMBER (RAJENDRA SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI, DATED: 20.3.2012. JV. COPY TO: THE APPELLANT THE RESPONDENT THE CIT, CONCERNED, MUMBAI THE CIT(A) CONCERNED, MUMBAI THE DR BENCH TRUE COPY BY ORDER DY/ASSTT. REGISTRAR, ITAT, MUMBAI.