SIDMARK SALES, MUMBAI V. ITO 17(2)(3), MUMBAI

ITA 340/MUM/2012

• Counselvise Citation: 34019914 RSA 2012
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 8 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-09-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Next Hearing Date: 25-09-2013
• Assessment Year: 2002-2003
• Appeal Filed On: 13-01-2012
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S K MADHUK
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL E BENCH, MUMBAI , , , BEFORE SHRI SANJAY ARORA , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI AMIT SHUKLA , JUDICIAL MEMB ER . / ITA NO. 340 /MUM./ 2012 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 20 0 2 - 03 ) SIDMARK SALES 5, ATUR HOUSE 87, DR. ANNE BESANT ROAD WORLI, MUMBAI 400 018 .. / APP ELLANT V/S INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD - 17(2) - 3 , PIRAMAL CHAMBERS MUMBAI .... / RESPONDENT ./ PERMANENT ACCOUNT NUMBER AAGFS8942M / ASSESSEE BY : NONE / REVENUE BY : MR. S.K. MADHUK / DATE OF HEARING 25 .0 9 .2013 / DATE OF ORDE R 25.09.2013 / ORDER , / PER AMIT SHUKLA , J.M. THE PRESENT APPEAL IS PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE , CHALLENGING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 30 TH NOVEMBER 2011 , PASSED BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) XIX, MUMBAI, FOR THE QUANTUM OF ASSESSMENT PASSED UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (FOR SHORT 'THE ACT') FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002 03, VIDE WHICH, THE SOLE GROUND RA ISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF ` 2,10,472, ON ACCOUNT OF PARTNERS REMUNERATION. SIDMARK SALES 2 2. W HEN THE CASE WAS CALLED FOR HEARING, NEITHER THE ASSESSEE NOR ANY OF ITS AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVES APPE ARED BEFORE US . THERE IS NO APPLICATION SEEKING ADJOURNMENT EITHER. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE COME TO A CONCLUSION THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED IN PROSECUTING ITS APPEAL. 3. THE HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN M/S. CHEMIPOL V/S UNION OF INDIA & ORS., IN CENTRAL EXCISE APPEAL NO.62 OF 2009, VIDE JUDGMENT DATED 17 TH SEPTEMBER 2009, WHILE CONSIDERING THE JUDGMENTS OF HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN CIT V/S S. CHENIAPPA MUDALIAR, AIR 1969 SC 1068, SUNDERLAL MANNALAL V/S NANDRAMDAS DWARKADAS, AIR 1958 MP 260, AND OTHER JUDGMENTS, OBSERVED AS FOLLOWS: - 6. WE CANNOT ALTOGETHER LOSE SIGHT OF THE RULE THAT EVERY COURT OR TRIBUNAL HAS AN INHERENT POWER TO DISMISS A PROCEEDING FOR NON - PROSECUTION WHEN THE PETITION / APPELLANT BEFORE IT DOES NOT WISH TO PRO SECUTE THE PROCEEDINGS. IN SUCH A SITUATION, UNLESS THE STATUTE CLEARLY REQUIRES THE COURT OR TRIBUNAL TO HEAR THE APPEAL / PROCEEDING AND DECIDE IT ON MERITS, IT CAN DISMISS THE APPEAL / PROCEEDING FOR. THE DELHI BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN CIT V/S M/S. MULTIPLAN INDIA PVT. LTD. [1991] 38 ITD 320 (DEL.), HAS HELD THAT IN A SIMILAR CIRCUMSTANCES, THE APPEAL MAY BE DISMISSED AS UNADMITTED. 4. APPLYING THE AFORESAID PROPOSITIONS LAID DOWN BY THE HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT AS WELL AS THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL CITED SUPRA, WE TREAT THIS APPEAL AS UNADMITTED AND HOLD THE SAME AS LIABLE TO BE DISMISSED AS SUCH. 5. 5. IN THE RESULT, ASSESSEES APPEAL IS TREATED AS DISMISSED. 2 5 TH SEPTEMBER 2013 ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 2 5 TH SEPTEMBER 2013 SD/ - SANJAY ARORA ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SD/ - AMIT SHUKLA JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI, DATED : 2 5 TH SEPTEMBER 2013 SIDMARK SALES 3 / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : (1) / THE ASSESSEE ; (2) / THE REVENUE; (3) ( ) / THE CIT(A ) ; (4) / THE CIT, MUMBAI CITY CONCERNED ; (5) , , / THE DR, ITAT, MUMBAI ; (6) / GUARD FILE . / TRUE COPY / BY ORDER . / PRADEEP J. CHOWDHURY / SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY / / (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, MUMBAI