FAROOQUE CHAUDHARY, MUMBAI V. ITO WD 17(3)(2), MUMBAI

ITA 3817/MUM/2009

• Counselvise Citation: [2010] 136 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1724 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 11 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 11-06-2010
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 02-06-2010
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 12-06-2009
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: P PEERYA

Judgement Text

ITA NO. 3817/MUM/2009 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH E MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI R S SYAL, AM & SHRI R S PADVEKAR, JM ITA NO. 3817/MUM/2009 (ASST YEAR 2005-06 ) FAROOQUE CHAUDHARY FLAT NO.201 2 ND FLOOR BAG-E REHMAT - AGRIPADA MUMBAI 20 VS THE INCOME TAX OFFI CER WARD 17(3)(2)), MUMBAI (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN ADDPC9317J ASSESSEE BY: NONE REVE NUE BY: SHRI P PEERYA O R D E R PER R S PADVEKAR: THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THIS APPEAL CHALLENGING THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE LD CIT(A)-XXVIII, MUMBAI DATED 20.6.20 08 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04. 2 WHEN THIS APPEAL WAS CALLED FOR HEARING ON 2.6.20 10, THE LD DR FOR THE REVENUE WAS PRESENT AND NONE WAS PRESENT FOR THE AS SESSEE. 3 FROM THE RECORD, IT IS SEEN THAT THE NOTICE OF H EARING WAS SENT TO THE ASSESSEE AS PER THE ADDRESS GIVEN IN FORM 36 BY R.P .A.D ON 15.4.2010 INTIMATING THE DATE OF HEARING OF THIS APPEAL. BUT THE SAME HAS BEEN RETURN BACK BY THE POSTAL AUTHORITIES WITH THE ENDORSEMENT LEFT AND THE SAME IS PLACED ON RECORD. THERE IS NO OTHER ADDRESS AVAILA BLE WITH THE REGISTRY. WE THEREFORE, OF THE OPINION THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED IN PROSECUTING ITA NO. 3817/MUM/2009 2 THIS APPEAL; ACCORDINGLY, WE DISMISS THE APPEAL AS NOT ADMITTED BY FOLLOWING THE DECISIONS OF THE HONBLE MADHYA PRADESH HIGH CO URT IN ESTATE OF LATE TUKOJIRAO HOLKAR VS CWT(223 ITR 480(MP) AND BY THE DELHI BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF CIT VS MULTIPLAN (INDIA) PV T LTD (38 ITD 320 (DEL). 4. IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. B N BHATTACHARGEE & ANOTH ER, (1979) 118 ITR 461 (SC), THEIR LORDSHIPS OF SUPREME COURT AT PAGE 477-78 HAS HELD THAT THE APPEAL DOES NOT MERELY MEAN FILING OF THE MEMO OF APPEAL BUT EFFECTIVELY PURSUING THE SAME. WE THEREFORE, CONSTRAINED TO PRE SUME THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED IN PURSUING THIS APPEAL. 5 IN THE RESULT, THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IS DISMISSE D IN LIMINE. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THE 11 TH , DAY OF JUNE 2010. SD/- SD/- ( R S SYAL ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (R S PADVEKAR ) JUDICIAL MEMBER PLACE: MUMBAI : DATED 11TH, JUNE 2010 RAJ* COPY FORWARDED TO: 1 APPELLANT 2 RESPONDENT 3 CIT 4 CIT(A) 5 DR /TRUE COPY/ BY ORDER DY /AR, ITAT, MUMBAI