GOVIND AGARWAL, MUMBAI V. A.C.I.T. CENTRAL CIRCLE - 32, MUMBAI

ITA 3376/MUM/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1757 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 9 month(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-02-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Next Hearing Date: 15-12-2015
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 27-04-2011
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'G' BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI D. MANMOHAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 4526, 4543, 4527 & 4528/MUM/2011 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2003-04, 2005-06, 2006-07 & 200 7-08) ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 32 SHRI GOVIND AGARWAL ROOM NO. 32(2), GROUND FLOOR 701, A-1, LOK BHARATI CHS LTD, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, M.K. ROAD VS. MAROL MAROSHI RAOD, MAROL MUMBAI 400020 ANDHERI (E), MUMBAI 400059 PAN - ADOPA 4038 K APPELLANT RESPONDENT ITA NO. 3375, 3376, & 3377 /MUM/2011 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2003-04, 2005-06 & 2006-07) SHRI GOVIND AGARWAL ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 32 701, A-1, LOK BHARATI CHS LTD, ROOM NO. 32(2), GROU ND FLOOR MAROL MAROSHI RAOD, MAROL VS. AAYAKAR BHAVAN, M.K. ROAD ANDHERI (E), MUMBAI 400059 MUMBAI 400020 PAN - ADOPA 4038 K APPELLANT RESPONDENT ITA NO. 4529 & 4544/MUM/2011 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2007-08 & 2006-07) ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 32 SHRI GOVIND AGARWAL (HUF) ROOM NO. 32(2), GROUND FLOOR C/O RAVI & DEV, CAS AAYAKAR BHAVAN, M.K. ROAD VS. 377-B, FRST FLOOR, JAGANNATH MUMBAI 400020 SHANKAR MARG, CHITRA BAZAR MUMBAI PAN - AACHG 4144 B APPELLANT RESPONDENT ITA NO. 3380 & 3381 /MUM/2011 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2006-07 & 2007-08) SHRI GOVIND AGARWAL (HUF) ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 32 C/O RAVI & DEV, CAS ROOM NO. 32(2), GROUND FLOOR 377-B, FRST FLOOR, JAGANNATH VS. AAYAKAR BHAVAN, M.K. ROAD SHANKAR MARG, CHITRA BAZAR MUMBAI MUMBAI 400020 PAN - AACHG 4144 B APPELLANT RESPONDENT REVENUE BY: SHRI PAVAN VED ASSESSEE BY: NONE ITA NO. 4526 +10/MUM/2011 SHRI GOVIND AGARWAL 2 DATE OF HEARING: 22.02.2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 22.02.2013 O R D E R PER BENCH THESE ARE CROSS APPEALS PREFERRED AGAINST THE ORDER S PASSED BY THE CIT(A) 41, MUMBAI AND THEY PERTAIN TO ASSESSMENT YE ARS 2003-04, 2005-06, 2006-07 & 2007-08. 2. THESE APPEALS WERE FILED IN THE YEAR 2011 AND THEY WERE ORIGINALLY FIXED FOR HEARING ON 11.04.2012 ON WHICH DATE THE C ASES WERE ADJOURNED AT THE REQUEST OF THE ASSESSEES COUNSEL AND IT WAS PO INTED OUT THAT WITHOUT A POWER OF ATTORNEY THE COUNSEL IS NOT ENTITLED TO AP PEAR ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. BUT EVEN THEREAFTER THE CASES WERE ADJOUR NED FROM TIME TO TIME BECAUSE EITHER THE BENCH DID NOT FUNCTION OR THE AS SESSEE WANTED ADJOURNMENT; TILL DATE THE LEARNED COUNSEL DID NOT FILE THE POWER OF ATTORNEY. FINALLY THE CASE WAS LISTED FOR HEARING ON 21.02.20 13, ON WHICH DATE ONE MR. AVINASH A. MEHTA, CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT OF M/S. RAVI & DEV, CAS FILED A LETTER STATING THAT SHRI DEVENDRA A. MEHTA, AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE SHALL BE AT JODHPUR ON 21.02.2013 IN C ONNECTION WITH HEARING BEFORE THE JODHPUR BENCH AND HENCE HE WILL NOT BE A BLE TO ATTEND THE HEARING AT MUMBAI. WE HAVE CALLED UPON THE REPRESEN TATIVE OF THE CONCERNED CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS TO FILE THE POWER O F ATTORNEY OF SHRI DEVENDRA A. MEHTA WHO CLAIMS TO BE THE AUTHORISED R EPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE. IT WAS ALSO INFORMED ON EARLIER OCCASIONS BUT EVEN TILL DATE THE POWER OF ATTORNEY WAS NOT FILED. HE PLEADED THAT IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO FILE THE POWER ATTORNEY TODAY AND HE WANTED FURTHER TIME. IT IS WELL SETTLED THAT UNDER THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, NO PERSON CAN APPEA R ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE UNLESS HE IS DULY AUTHORISED, AS PER THE P ROCEDURE PRESCRIBED, AND IT HAS TO BE PLACED BEFORE THE BENCH IN ORDER TO SA TISFY ITSELF THAT THEY WERE AUTHORISED TO REPRESENT THE MATTER. IN THE INSTANT CASE THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT APPEARED BEFORE US AND THE SO CALLED AUTHORISED REP RESENTATIVE SIMPLY ITA NO. 4526 +10/MUM/2011 SHRI GOVIND AGARWAL 3 SOUGHT ADJOURNMENT WITHOUT EVEN FILING THE POWER OF ATTORNEY, WHICH SHOWS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED IN PROSECUTING THE APPEALS. UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, IT WAS MENTIONED IN THE OPEN COURT T HAT IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO GRANT ADJOURNMENT UNLESS THE POWER OF ATTORNEY IS F ILED AND ACCORDINGLY PASSED OVER THE MATTERS SO AS TO ENABLE THE REPRESE NTATIVE OF THE CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS TO FILE THE POWER OF ATTORNEY. EVEN THO UGH SUFFICIENT TIME WAS GIVEN THE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE CHARTERED ACCOUNTAN TS COULD NOT FILE THE POWER OF ATTORNEY NOR WAS THE ASSESSEE PRESENT IN T HE COURT. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES WE ASSUME THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT IN TERESTED IN PROSECUTING THE APPEALS. 3. IT MAY NOT BE OUT OF PLACE TO MENTION THAT EVENTHO UGH WE REFUSED TO GRANT ADJOURNMENT TO THE ASSESSEE, AND SPECIFICALLY MENTIONED TO THE LEARNED CIT-D.R. THAT THE CASES WOULD BE HEARD AND HE SHOULD REPRESENT AND EXPLAIN THE CASES TO THE BENCH, THE LEARNED CIT DR SIMPLY WALKED OUT OF THE COURT AND WAS NOT PRESENT WHEN THE CASE WAS CALLED UP FOR HEARING AT 12.00 NOON. WE, THEREFORE, HAVE NO ALTERNATIVE EXCE PT TO ASSUME THAT EVEN THE REVENUE IS NOT INTERESTED IN PROSECUTING THE AP PEALS. 4. THE HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF M/S. C HEMIPOL VS. UNION OF INDIA IN CENTRAL EXCISE APPEAL NO. 62 OF 2 009 HELD THAT IF THE PARTIES ARE NOT INTERESTED IN PROSECUTING THE APPEA L IT IS NOT MANDATORY ON THE PART OF THE APPELLATE FORUM TO DECIDE THE APPEA LS ON MERITS AND IT HAS AN INHERENT RIGHT TO DISMISS THE APPEALS FOR NON-AP PEARANCE. BY RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE AFORESAID DECISION WE DISMISS THE APP EALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS THE REVENUE FOR NON-PROSECUTION. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 21 ST FEBRUARY, 2013. SD/- SD/- (N.K. BILLAIYA) (D. MANMOHAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT MUMBAI, DATED: 21 ST FEBRUARY, 2013 ITA NO. 4526 +10/MUM/2011 SHRI GOVIND AGARWAL 4 COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT(A) 41, MUMBAI 4. THE CIT CENTRAL - III, MUMBAI CITY 5. THE DR, G BENCH, ITAT, MUMBAI BY ORDER //TRUE COPY// ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, MUMBAI BENCHES, MUMBAI N.P.