ROOPAM ELECTRIC STORES, MUMBAI V. ITO 14(20(2), MUMBAI

ITA 3523/MUM/2009

• Counselvise Citation: [2010] 136 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7293 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 9 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-03-2010
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 22-03-2010
• Assessment Year: 1999-2000
• Appeal Filed On: 29-05-2009
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ANKUR GARG

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH D: MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI J. SUDHAKAR REDDY (AM) AND SHRI R.S. PADVEKAR (JM) ITA NO. 3523 & 3524/MUM/2009 (ASSTT. YEAR : 1999-2000 & 2000-01) M/S. ROOPAM ELECTRIC STORES APPELLANT 40, JAI MAHAL ESTATE, LOHAR CHAWL, MUMBAI 400 002 PAN : AAAFR3555P V/S. INCOME TAX OFFICER RESPONDENT WARD 14(2)(2) 3 RD FLR, EARNEST HOUSE, MUMBAI 400 021 APPELLANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY : SHRI ANKUR GARG : O R D E R : PER R.S. PADVEKAR, J.M THESE TWO APPEALS ARE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE CHALLEN GING THE RESPECTIVE ORDERS OF THE LD CIT(A)- XIV, MUMBAI DATED 5.3.20 09 RELATING TO THE A.Y. 1999-2000 AND 2000-01 RESPECTIVELY. 2. THESE APPEALS WERE POSTED FOR HEARING EARLIER ON 9.2.2010 AND ON THE SAID DATE, THE ASSESSEE SOUGHT ADJOURNMENT. AS PER THE REQUEST OF THE ASSESSEE, BOTH THESE APPEALS WERE ADJOURNED AND AGA IN FIXED FOR HEARING ON 22.3.2010 AND DATE OF HEARING WAS INFORMED TO THE ASSESSEE BY PRONOUNCING THE SAME IN THE OPEN COURT. WHEN THESE APPEALS WERE CALLED FOR HEARING ON 22.3.2010, NONE WAS PRESENT FOR THE ASSESSEE NOR AN Y APPLICATION FOR ADJOURNMENT WAS FILED. WE ARE, THEREFORE, OF THE OPINION THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED TO PROSECUTE THESE APPEALS. WE, THE REFORE, FOLLOWING THE ITA NO.3523 & 3524/MUM/2009 2 PRINCIPLES LAID DOWN BY THE HONBLE MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF ESTATE OF LATE TUKOJIRAO HOLKAR V/S. CWT (223 ITR 4 80(MP) AND BY THE DELHI BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF CIT V/S. MULT IPLAN (INDIA) PVT. LTD., 38 ITD 320 (DEL), DISMISS BOTH THESE APPEALS AS NOT AD MITTED. THE ASSESSEE IS AT LIBERTY TO MOVE APPROPRIATE APPLICATION WITH PRAYER TO RE-CALL THIS ORDER BY GIVING THE PROPER REASON AS TO WHY HE FAILED TO REM AIN PRESENT ON THE DATE OF HEARING, IF ANY. 3. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 25TH DAY OF MARCH, 2010. SD/- SD/- (J. SUDHAKAR REDDY) (R.S. PADVEKAR) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI, ON THIS 25TH DAY OF MARCH, 2010. :US COPY TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT , 3.THE CIT(A)- XIV, MUMBAI 4.THE CIT -14, MUMBAI 5.THE DR, D BENCH, MUMBAI 6.GUARD FILE BY ORDER TRUE COPY ASSTT..REGISTRAR, ITAT, MUMBAI. ITA NO.3523 & 3524/MUM/2009 3 US DATE INITIALS 1. DRAFT DICTATED ON 22/3/10 --------------- SR.P.S . 2. DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHORITY 23/3/10 --------- ----- SR.P.S. 3. DRAFT PROPOSED & PLACED ----------- ---------- --- JM BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER 4. DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED ----------- ----------- -- JM/AM BY SECOND MEMBER 5. APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO ----------- ------------ - SR.P.S. THE SR. P.S./P.S 6. KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT ON --------- ----------- -- SR.P.S. 7. FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK --------- --------- ---- SR.P.S. 8. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE ------- --------- ---- 9. DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER --------- --------- ----