IOL NETCOM LTD ( FORMELRY KNOWN AS IOL BROADBAND LTD), MUMBAI V. ACIT CIR 11(1), MUMBAI

ITA 3351/MUM/2010

• Counselvise Citation: 335119914 RSA 2010
• Duration Of Justice: 11 month(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-04-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: I
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 29-04-2010
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SANJEEV DUTT

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL I BENCH: MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI R.S. PADVEKAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAJENDRA SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.3351/MUM/2010 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-07) M/S. IOL NETCOM LTD., (FORMERLY KNOWN AS IOL BROADBAND LTD.) 601, RAHEJA CENTRE, NARIMAN POINT, MUMBAI -400 021 ASSESSEE VS ACIT- CIRCLE 11(1), AAYAKAR BHAVAN, 4TH FLOOR, MUMBAI -400 020 ....REVENUE PAN: AABCN 0844 R ASSESSEE BY: NONE REVENUE BY: SHRI SANJEEV DUTT 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)-3 MUMBAI DATED 08.03.2010 FOR TH E A.Y. 2006-07. 2. THIS APPEAL IS FIXED FOR HEARING ON 254.04.2011. THE LD. D.R. FOR THE DEPARTMENT SHRI SANJEEV DUTT CIT DR WAS PRESENT AND NONE WAS PRESENT FOR THE ASSESSEE DESPITE SERVICE OF NOTICE THROUGH RPAD ON 10.03.2011. ITA 3351/M/2010 M/S. IOL NETCOM 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 TO THE ASSESSEE BY THE POSTAL AUTHORITIES ACKNOWLED GEMENT IS ON RECORD, THE ASSESSEE DID NOT REMAIN PRESENT NOR FILED AN AP PLICATION FOR THE ADJOURNMENT. WE ARE, THEREFORE, OF THE OPINION THA T 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 OF 2 5TH APRIL 2011. SD/- SD/- (RAJENDRA SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ( R.S. PADVEKAR ) JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI, DATE: 25TH APRIL 2011 COPY TO:- 1) THE APPELLANT. 2) THE RESPONDENT. 3) THE CIT (A) 3, MUMBAI. ITA 3351/M/2010 M/S. IOL NETCOM LTD. 3 4) THE CIT 11, MUMBAI. 5) THE D.R. D BENCH, MUMBAI. BY ORDER / / TRUE COPY / / ASSTT. REGISTRAR I.T.A.T., MUMBAI *CHAVAN ITA 3351/M/2010 M/S. IOL NETCOM LTD. 4 SR.N. EPISODE OF AN ORDER DATE INITIALS CONCERNED 1 DRAFT DICTATED ON 25.04.2011 SR.PS 2 DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR 25.04.2011 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