PANKAJ PARIKH & CO, MUMBAI V. ITO WD 24(3)(2), MUMBAI

ITA 3424/MUM/2009

• Counselvise Citation: [2010] 136 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7577 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-02-2010
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 30-03-2011
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 26-05-2009
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: L K AGARWAL
• Keywords: Reasonable cause

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH: MUM BAI BEFORE SHRI T R SOOD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI V DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO 3424/MUM/2009 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2005-06) M/S PANKAJ PARIKH & CO, 201, AUDUMBER APARTMENTS, 1227, V.S. ROAD, PRABHDEVI, MUMBAI -400 025 PAN: AAAFP 2328 N VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 24(3)(2), MUMBAI APPELLANT RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY: NONE REVENUE BY: SHRI L K AGARWAL ORDER PER T R SOOD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAIN ST THE ORDER DATED 31.03.2009 OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) XXIV, MUMBAI. 2. DURING THE HEARING ON 18.2.2010, NONE APPEARED O N BEHALF OF THE ASSESEEE, ALTHOUGH BOTH THE PARTIES WERE INFORMED THROUGH RPA D BUT IT RETURNED BACK WITH THE POSTAL REMARK UNCLAIMED AND NO OTHER ADDRESS HAS BEEN GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE RELEVANT COLUMN OF FROM NO.36. IT IS THEREFORE, PR ESUMED THAT ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED IN PURSUING THE APPEAL FILED BY IT. IT HAS BEEN HEL D BY THE HONBLE MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT IN ESTATE OF LATE TUKOJIRAO HOLKAR VS. CWT (2 23 ITR 480)(MP) THAT IF THE PARTY, AT WHOSE INSTANCE THE REFERENCE IS MADE, FAILS TO APPE AR AT THE HEARING OR FAILS IN TAKING STEPS FOR PREPARATION OF PAPER-BOOKS, SO AS TO ENAB LE HEARING OF THE REFERENCE, THE COURT IS NOT BOUND TO ANSWER THE REFERENCE. THE DECISION OF THE DELHI BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN CIT VS. MULTIPLAN (INDIA) PVT. LTD., 38 ITD 320 (DE L.) IS ALSO TO THE SAME EFFECT. IN THE FACTS OF THE CASE WE HOLD THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED IN PURSUING THE PRESENT APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. ACCORDINGLY, THE APPEA L OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED AS ITA 3424/MUM/2009 M/S PANKAJ PARIKH & CO 2 UNADMITTED. THE ASSESSEE, IF SO ADVISED, SHALL BE FREE TO MOVE THE TRIBUNAL PRAYING FOR RECALLING OF THIS ORDER PROVIDED THE ASSESSEE IS AB LE TO ESTABLISH THE REASONABLE CAUSE BEHIND THE NON-APPEARANCE ON THE DATE OF HEARING AN D IN THAT CASE THE TRIBUNAL MAY IN ITS DISCRETION RECALL THIS ORDER AND THE APPEAL MAY BE RESTORED FOR RE-HEARING. 3. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISS ED IN LIMINE . ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 18TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2010. SD/- (V DURGA RAO) JUDICIAL MEMBER SD/- (T R SOOD) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI, DATE: 18TH FEBRUARY, 2010 COPY TO:- 1) THE APPELLANT. 2) THE RESPONDENT. 3) THE CIT (A) XXIV, MUMBAI. 4) THE CIT- 24, MUMBAI. 5) THE DR C BENCH, ITAT, MUMBAI. BY ORDER / / TRUE COPY / / ASSTT. REGISTRAR CHAVAN* ITAT, MUMBAI ITA 3424/MUM/2009 M/S PANKAJ PARIKH & CO 3 SR.N. EPISODE OF AN ORDER DATE INITIALS CONCERNED 1 DRAFT DICTATED ON 18.02.2010 SR.PS 2 DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR 18.02.2010 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 SR.PS 6 KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT ON SR.PS 7 FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK SR.PS 8 DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK 9 DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER