KANCHANBEN J. SHAH, MUMBAI V. ITO 10(3)(2), MUMBAI

ITA 388/MUM/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3604 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 4 month(s) 12 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-05-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: I
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 14-01-2011
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL I BENCH, MUM BAI .., !' , #$ # % BEFORE SHRI B. R. MITTAL, J. M. AND SHRI SANJAY AR ORA, A. M. ./ I.T.A. NO. 388/MUM/2011 ( ' ( )( ' ( )( ' ( )( ' ( )( / / / / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-07) KANCHANBEN J. SHAH 1683/16-A KINJALK APARTMENT, DR. AMBEDKAR ROAD, MULUND (W), MUMBAI-400 080 ' ' ' ' / VS. ITO 10(3) (2), ROOM NO. 259, 4 TH FLOOR, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, MUMBAI-400 020 * #$ ./ + ./ PAN: AANPS 8350 A ( *, / APPELLANT ) : ( -.*, / RESPONDENT ) *, / # / APPELLANT BY : NONE -.*, 0 / # / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI MANOJ KUMAR ' 0 12$ / // / DATE OF HEARING : 27.05.2013 3!) 0 12$ / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 27.05.2013 #4 / O R D E R PER SANJAY ARORA, A. M.: THIS IS AN APPEAL PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-22, MUMBAI (C IT(A) FOR SHORT) DATED 15.11.2010, DISMISSING THE ASSESSEES APPEAL CONTES TING ITS ASSESSMENT U/S.143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (THE ACT HEREINAFTER) FOR TH E ASSESSMENT YEAR (A.Y.) 2006-07 VIDE ORDER DATED 31.12.2008. 2 ITA NO. 388/MUM/2011 (A.Y. 2006-07) KANCHANBEN J. SHAH VS. ITO 2. NONE APPEARED FOR AND ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE WHEN ITS APPEAL WAS CALLED OUT FOR HEARING, NOR ANY ADJOURNMENT APPLICATION STANDS REC EIVED. THIS, DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE DATE OF HEARING FOR TODAY INSTANT, I.E., 27.05.2013 STOOD FIXED AND, ACCORDINGLY, CONVEYED TO THE ASSESSEE PER THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT-CUM-NOTICE DATED 14.01.2011, SIGNIFYING THE TAKING ON RECORD OF AN APPEAL BY THE REGISTRY. AS S UCH, THE ASSESSEE HAD DUE AND SUFFICIENT NOTICE OF THE DATE OF HEARING. DESPITE SO, ANOTHER NOTICE WAS SENT TO THE ASSESSEE PER REGISTERED POST, ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF WHICH IS ON RECO RD. IT, THEREFORE, APPEARS TO US THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT SERIOUS OR EARNEST IN PROSECUTI NG HER APPEAL. IN THE CASE OF CIT V. B.N. BHATTARCHARYA (1979) 118 ITR 461 (SC) IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT PREF ERRING AN APPEAL DOES NOT MEAN MERE FILING OF THE APPEAL MEMO BUT EFFECTI VELY PURSUING IT. WE, THEREFORE, FOLLOWING THE DECISIONS BY THE HONBLE MADHYA PRADE SH HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF ESTATE OF LATE TUKOJIRAO HOLKAR VS. CWT (1997) 223 ITR 480 (MP) AND BY THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT DATED 17.09.2010 IN THE CASE OF CHEMIPOL VS. UNION OF INDIA IN CENTRAL EXCISE APPEAL NO. 62 OF 2009, AS WELL AS BY THE TRIBUNAL ( DELHI BENCH) IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. MULTIPLAN INDIA (P.) LTD ., REPORTED AT 38 ITD 320, DISMISS THE INSTANT APPE AL BY THE ASSESSEE AS UNADMITTED FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION. 3. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIS MISSED IN LIMINE . 5 16 ' (51 0 $5 0 1 78 ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 27 TH MAY, 2013 #4 0 3!) $# 9'6 ! 0 : SD/- SD/- (B. R. MITTAL) (SANJAY ARORA) / JUDICIAL MEMBER #$ / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI; 9' DATED : 27.05.2013 .'../ ROSHANI , SR. PS 3 ITA NO. 388/MUM/2011 (A.Y. 2006-07) KANCHANBEN J. SHAH VS. ITO #4 0 -1; <#;)1 #4 0 -1; <#;)1 #4 0 -1; <#;)1 #4 0 -1; <#;)1/ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. *, / THE APPELLANT 2. -.*, / THE RESPONDENT . 3. = ( ) / THE CIT(A) 4. = / CIT - CONCERNED 5. ;@: -1' , , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. :A( B / GUARD FILE #4' #4' #4' #4' / BY ORDER, C CC C/ // /7 7 7 7 (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , , , , / ITAT, MUMBAI