PRAMILA ARVIND GANDHI, MUMBAI V. ACIT 19(3), MUMBAI

ITA 382/MUM/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2010] 135 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3674 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 10 month(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 10-12-2010
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 21-02-2012
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 15-01-2010
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SUM EET KUMAR

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES, C, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI R.S.SYAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 382/MUM/2010 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2006-07) PRAMILA ARVIND GANDHI 4,SUSHEELA SADAN, PERRY CROSS ROAD BANDRA, MUMBAI-400050. PAN: ADYPG3227G . APPELLANT VS ACIT 19(3), 3 RD FL. PIRAMAL CHAMBER, LALBAUG, MUMBAI-400012 RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY : SHRI SUMEET KUMAR . O R D E R PER VIJAY PAL RAO,JM THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST T HE ORDER DATED 30.10.2009 OF CIT(A)-XXX, MUMBAI FOR TH E ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. 2. THIS APPEAL WAS FILED ON 15/01/2010 AND WAS PLAC ED ON BOARD FOR HEARING ON 14/09/2010. ON 14.09.2010, TH E BENCH DID NOT FUNCTION AND THEREFORE, THE APPEAL WAS ADJO URNED SUO- MOTU TO 01.12.2010 AND THE NOTICE FOR THIS HEARING WAS PLACED ON NOTICE BOARD. ON 01.12.2010, NEITHER ANYBODY A PPEARED BEFORE US NOR ANY APPLICATION FOR SEEKING ADJOURNM ENT IS RECEIVED IN THE OFFICE OF THE TRIBUNAL. IN VIEW O F THIS FACTUAL POSITION, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE ASSESSEE I S NOT SERIOUSLY INTERESTED IN PROSECUTING THE APPEAL FILE D BY HER. ITA NO. 382/MUM/2010 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2006-07) 2 THEREFORE, WE HAVE NO OTHER ALTERNATIVE BUT TO DISP OSE OF THE APPEAL BY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. MULTIPLAN INDIA (P) LTD., REPORTED IN 38 IT D 320 (DEL); AS ALSO THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF ESTATE OF LATE TUKOJIRAO HOLKA R VS. CWT, REPORTED IN 223 ITR 480 (MP). ACCORDINGLY, WE TREA T THIS APPEAL AS UNADMITTED. 3. HOWEVER, WE MAY MENTION THAT IN CASE THE ASSESSE E DESIRES TO PROSECUTE THE APPEAL, HE SHALL BE FREE TO MOVE THIS TRIBUNAL BY APPROPRIATE PETITION FOR RECALLING THE ORDER AND IF THE BENCH IS SO SATISFIED ABOUT THE REASONS FOR DEF AULT, THEN THIS ORDER SHALL BE RECALLED SO AS TO TREAT THIS AP PEAL AS ADMITTED. 4. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE STANDS DIS MISSED FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 10.12.2010 SD SD (R.S.SYAL) (VIJ AY PAL RAO) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI, ON THIS 10 TH DAY OF DEC, 2010 SRL:21210 COPY TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT CONCERNED 4. CIT(A) CONCERNED 5. DR CONCERNED BENCH TRUE COPY BY ORDER ASSTT. REGISTRAR, ITAT, MUMBAI ITA NO. 382/MUM/2010 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2006-07) 3