MAXCOOL TECHNOLOGIES (I) P. LTD, NAVI MUMBAI V. ITO WD 3(2), THANE

ITA 3652/MUM/2011

• Counselvise Citation: 365219914 RSA 2011
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 1 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 04-07-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 06-05-2011
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PRAVIN VERMA
• Section: 263

Judgement Text

, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH, MUMBAI . . , ! ! ! ! , ' ' ' ' # # # # BEFORE SHRI B.R. MITTAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND SHRI RAJENDRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER . / ITA NO. 3652/MUM./2011 ( $ % &% / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 200607 ) MAXCOOL TECHNOLOGIES (I) PVT. LTD. C6, TIC INDUSTRIAL AREA, PAWANE VILLAGE, NAVI MUMBAI 400 709 .. '( / APPELLANT $ V/S INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD3(2), VARDAN, GROUND FLOOR MIDC INDUSTRIAL ESTATE THANE 400 604 .... )*'( / RESPONDENT ' ' ./ + ./ PAN/GIR NO.AADCM5969Q $ %,- . / / ASSESSEE BY : NONE . / / REVENUE BY : MR. PRAVIN VERMA $ . -' / DATE OF HEARING 25.06.2012 0 12& . -' / DATE OF ORDER 04.07.2012 0 0 0 0 / ORDER PER B.R. MITTAL, J.M. THE PRESENT APPEAL PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE, IS DI RECTED AGAINST THE IMPUGNED ORDER 28 TH FEBRUARY 2012, PASSED BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER II, THANE, FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 200607, ON THE FOLL OWING GROUNDS: MAXCOOL TECHNOLOGIES (I) P. LTD. 2 ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE A ND IN LAW, THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN PASSING THE ORDER UNDER SEC TION 263 OF THE ACT GIVING THE FINDING THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS ERRONEOUS IN AS MUCH AS IT WAS PREJUDIC IAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE AND IN DIRECTING HIM TO PASS A FRESH ORDER DENOVO . 2. NOTICE WAS SENT TO THE ASSESSEE BY REGISTERED POST WITH ACKNOWLEDGEMENT FIXING THE DATE OF HEARING FOR 25 TH JUNE 2012. AS PER THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT CARD PLACED ON RECORD, IT APPEARS T HAT THE NOTICE WAS SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE BUT ON THE DATE FIXED FOR HE ARING ON 25 TH JUNE 2012, NO ONE IS PRESENT ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. THERE IS NO APPLICATION FOR ADJOURNMENT EITHER. IT SEEMS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS N OT INTERESTED IN PROSECUTING ITS APPEAL. HENCE, THIS APPEAL OF THE A SSESSEE IS LIABLE TO BE DISMISSED FOR NONPROSECUTION. IN THIS REGARD, WE A RE SUPPORTED BY THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF CIT V/S B.N. BHATTACHARGEE AND ANOTHER, REPORTED IN 118 ITR 460 (RELEVANT PAGES477 & 478) WHEREIN THEI R LORDSHIPS HAVE HELD THAT: THE APPEAL DOES NOT MEAN MERELY FILING OF THE APPEA L BUT EFFECTIVELY PURSING IT . 3. IN THIS REGARD, WE ARE ALSO SUPPORTED BY THE DECISI ON IN THE CASE OF CIT V/S MULTIPLAN INDIA (P) LTD., 38 ITD 320 (DEL.) 4. IN VIEW OF HE ABOVE AND ALSO CONSIDERING THE PROVIS IONS OF RULE 19 OF THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RULES, 1963, THE APPEAL OF T HE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. 5. , -3 $ %,- . ', . - 45 6 10. IN THE RESULT, ASSESSEES APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 0 . 2& ' 7 8$3 4 TH JULY 2012 2 . 9 6 ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 4 TH JULY 2012 SD/- ! ! ! ! ' ' ' ' RAJENDRA ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SD/- . . B.R. MITTAL JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI, DATED: 4 TH JULY 2012 MAXCOOL TECHNOLOGIES (I) P. LTD. 3 COPY TO : (1) THE ASSESSEE; (2) THE RESPONDENT; (3) THE CIT(A), MUMBAI, CONCERNED; (4) THE CIT, MUMBAI CITY CONCERNED; (5) THE DR, B BENCH, ITAT, MUMBAI. TRUE COPY BY ORDER PRADEEP J. CHOWDHURY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY ITAT, MUMBAI BENCHES, MUMBAI SELF DRAFTED DATE INITIAL 1. DRAFT DICTATED ON 26.6.2012 SR.PS 2. DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR 27.6.2012 SR.PS 3. DRAFT PROPOSED & PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER 28.6.2012 JM/AM 4. DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED BY SECOND MEMBER 28.6.2012 JM/AM 5. APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.PS/PS 28.6.2012 SR.PS 6. DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 4.7.2012 SR.PS 7. FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK 5.7.2012 SR.PS 8. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK 9. DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER