MR GAURANG DAMANI, MUMBAI V. THE ACIT 21(2), MUMBAI

ITA 380/MUM/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3845 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 4 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 16-05-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Next Hearing Date: 06-03-2013
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 13-01-2011
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: D K SINHA
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

, , , , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL G BENCH, MUMBAI , , !' !' !' !' # $% # $% # $% # $% , ,, , & & & & ' ' ' ' BEFORE SHRI RAJENDRA SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER . / ITA NO. 380/MUM./2011 ( &) * '+* / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 200708 ) MR. GAURANG DAMANI A/11/2, AVANTI APARTMENT FLANK ROAD, SION (WEST) MUMBAI 400 022 .. ,- / APPELLANT ) V/S ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE21(2), PRATYAKSHAKAR BHAVAN BANDRA, MUMBAI .... ./,- / RESPONDENT , . / PERMANENT ACCOUNT NUMBER AADPD1692A &) *1# 2 3 / ASSESSEE BY : NONE ' 2 3 / REVENUE BY : MR. D.K. SINHA )' 2 # / DATE OF HEARING 16.05.2013 $ 45+ 2 # / DATE OF ORDER 16.05.2013 $ $ $ $ / ORDER # $% # $% # $% # $% , ,, , & & & & 6 6 6 6 / PER AMIT SHUKLA, J.M. THE PRESENT APPEAL IS PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE CHA LLENGING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 2 ND NOVEMBER 2010, PASSED BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS)XXXII, MUMBAI, FOR THE QUANT UM OF ASSESSMENT PASSED UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (FOR SHORT THE ACT ) FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 200708. MR. GAURANG DAMANI 2 2. BEFORE US, WHEN THE CASE WAS CALLED FOR HEARING, NO NE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. THERE IS NO APPLICATION SEE KING ADJOURNMENT EITHER. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE COME TO A CONCLUSION THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED IN PROSECUTING HIS APPEAL. 3. THE HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN M/S. CHEMI POL V/S UNION OF INDIA & ORS., IN CENTRAL EXCISE APPEAL NO.62 OF 200 9, 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 19 58 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 PROCEED ING FOR NON-PROSECUTION WHEN THE PETITION / APPELLANT BEFORE IT DOES NOT WI SH TO PROSECUTE THE PROCEEDINGS. IN SUCH A SITUATION, UNLESS THE STATUT E CLEARLY REQUIRES THE COURT OR TRIBUNAL TO HEAR THE APPEAL / PROCEEDING A ND DECIDE IT ON MERITS, IT CAN DISMISS THE APPEAL / PROCEEDING FOR . THE DELHI BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN M/S. MULTIPLAN INDIA PVT. LTD. (1991) 38 ITD 320 (DEL.), HAS HELD THAT IN A SIMILA R CIRCUMSTANCES, THE APPEAL MAY BE DISMISSED AS UNADMITTED. 4. APPLYING THE AFORESAID PROPOSITIONS LAID DOWN BY TH E HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT AS WELL AS THE DECISION O F THE TRIBUNAL CITED SUPRA, WE TREAT THIS APPEAL AS UNADMITTED AND HOLD THE SAM E AS LIABLE TO BE DISMISSED AS SUCH. 5. 1 #7 &) *1# 2 1 2 # 8 9 5. IN THE RESULT, ASSESSEES APPEAL IS DISMISSED. $ 2 45+ : ;)7 16 TH MAY 2013 5 2 < 9 ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 16 TH MAY 2013 SD/- RAJENDRA SINGH ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SD/- # # # # $% $% $% $% & & & & AMIT SHUKLA JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI, ;) ;) ;) ;) DATED: 16 TH MAY 2013 MR. GAURANG DAMANI 3 $ 2 .&#= >=+# / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : (1) &) *1# / THE ASSESSEE; (2) ' / THE REVENUE; (3) ? () / THE CIT(A); (4) ? / THE CIT, MUMBAI CITY CONCERNED; (5) ='B< .&#&) , , / THE DR, ITAT, MUMBAI; (6)