MS FERESHTE SETHNA, MUMBAI V. ITO WARD 11(2)(3), MUMBAI

ITA 3764/MUM/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 49557 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 2 month(s) 16 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-07-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Next Hearing Date: 27-07-2011
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 11-05-2010
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SUBACHAN RAM

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH FMUMBAI BEFORE SHRI T.R. SOOD (AM) AND SMT. ASHA VIJAYARAGHAVAN (JM) ITA NO. 3764/MUM/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04 MS. FERESHTE SETHNA, 127, MAKER CHAMBERS-III, NARIMAN POINT, MUMBAI-400 021 PAN-AQWPS 3879H VS. THE ITO, WARD 11(2)(3), MUMBAI (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: NONE RESPONDENT BY: SHRI SUBACHAN RAM DATE OF HEARING : 27.07.2011 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT IN THE OPEN COURT: 27.07.2011 O R D E R PER ASHA VIJAYARAGHAVAN (JM) THIS APPEAL PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED A GAINST THE ORDER DATED 16.3.2010 PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A)-3 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04. 2. THIS APPEAL WAS FIXED FOR HEARING ON 27.07.2011. AT THE TIME OF HEARING NONE WAS PRESENT ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE NOR FILED ANY APPLICATION FOR ADJOURNMENT OF THE CASE. IT APPEARS THAT THE A SSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED IN PURSUING THE APPEAL. IT HAS BEEN HELD BY THE HON'BL E SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF B.N. BHATTACHARGEE & ANR. (118 ITR 461 AT PAGES 477/478) THAT APPEAL DOES NOT MEAN ONLY FILING OF MEMO OF APPEAL BUT ALSO PURSUING IT EFFECTIVELY. IN CASES WHERE THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT W ANT TO PURSUE THE APPEAL, ITA NO. 3764/M/10 2 COURT/TRIBUNAL HAVE INHERENT POWER TO DISMISS THE A PPEAL FOR NON PROSECUTION AS HELD BY THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CA SE OF M/S. CHEMIPOL VS. UNION OF INDIA IN EXCISE APPEAL NO.62 OF 2009. WE ARE CONVINCED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED IN PROSECUTING THE APPEA L. WE, THEREFORE, DISMISS THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE AS UNADMITTED. 3. THE ASSESSEE SHALL, HOWEVER, BE AT LIBERTY TO AP PROACH THE TRIBUNAL FOR RECALLING OF THIS ORDER, IF PREVENTED BY SUFFICIENT CAUSE FOR NON-APPEARANCE ON THE DATE OF HEARING. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE ASSESSEES APPEAL STANDS DISMI SSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 27 TH JULY, 2011 SD/- SD/- (T.R. SOOD) (ASHA VIJAYARAGHAVAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI, DATED 27 TH JULY, 2011 RJ COPY TO : 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT-CONCERNED 4. THE CIT(A)-CONCERNED 5. THE DR F BENCH TRUE COPY BY ORDER ASSTT. REGISTRAR, I.T.A.T, MUMBAI ITA NO. 3764/M/10 3 DATE INITIALS 1. DRAFT DICTATED ON: 27.7.2011 SR. PS/PS 2. DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR: 27.07.2011 SR. PS/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/PS: SR. PS/PS 6. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON: SR. PS/PS 7. FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK: 8. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK: SR. PS/PS 9. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO AR 10. DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER: