MADHU FINANCE, MUMBAI V. ITO WD 12(3)(4), MUMBAI

ITA 3945/MUM/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 71228 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 4 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 10-10-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 07-10-2013
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 06-06-2012
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SU RENDRA KUMAR

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH, MUM BAI , BEFORE SHRI D. MANMOHAN, VP AND SHRI SANJAY ARORA, AM ! I.T.A. NO. 3945/MUM/2012 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09) MADHU FINANCE 212, TULSIANI CHAMBERS, NARIMAN POINT, MUMBAI-400 021 ! VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 12(3)(4), M. K. ROAD, MUMBAI '! # ./PAN/GIR NO. AAOFM 2688 Q ( '$ /APPELLANT ) : ( %&'$ / RESPONDENT ) '$' / APPELLANT BY : NONE %&'$(' / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI SURENDRA KUMAR ) *+(,- / DATE OF HEARING : 10.10.2013 ./0(,- / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 10.10.2013 1! O R D E R PER SANJAY ARORA, A. M.: THIS IS AN APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-23, MUMBAI (CIT(A) FOR SH ORT) DATED 04.04.2012, PARTLY ALLOWING THE ASSESSEES APPEAL CONTESTING ITS ASSES SMENT U/S.143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (THE ACT HEREINAFTER) FOR THE ASSESSMEN T YEAR (A.Y.) 2008-09 VIDE ORDER DATED 15.11.2010. 2 ITA NO. 3945/MUM/2012 (A.Y. 2008-09) MADHU FINANCE VS. ITO 2. NONE APPEARED FOR AND ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE WHEN ITS APPEAL WAS CALLED OUT FOR HEARING. THE CASE WAS POSTED FOR 07.10.2013 PER A N OTICE THROUGH REGISTERED POST IN VIEW OF NON APPEARANCE ON THE DATE OF ORIGINAL FIXATION ON 03/7/2013. IT WAS EXPLAINED TO THE BEARER OF THE ADJOURNMENT APPLICATION DATED 07/10/1 3 (ON RECORD), WHO COULD NOT IDENTIFY HIMSELF AS ANY RESPONSIBLE PERSON, THAT THE POWER O F ATTORNEY BEING SUBMITTED ALONG WITH COULD NOT BE ACCEPTED INASMUCH AS THE SAME HAS NOT BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE PERSON IN WHOSE FAVOUR IT HAS BEEN MADE, I.E., SHRI PRAVIN KU MAR BAFNA OF M/S. JAIN & BAFNA, CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS. THE MATTER WAS ACCORDINGLY A DJOURNED TO 10/10/2013 TO ENABLE THE ASSESSEE TO RECTIFY THIS DEFECT OR FILE A PROPE R LETTER OF AUTHORITY INASMUCH AS THE TRIBUNAL COULD MOVE ONLY ON THE BASIS OF A REPRESEN TATION EITHER BY THE ASSESSEE ITSELF OR ITS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE, I.E., WITH VALID POW ER. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE HAS NEITHER FILED ANY FRESH POWER OF ATTORNEY OR EVEN ITSELF AT TENDED THE PROCEEDINGS ON THE DATE SO GRANTED. UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, AS IT APPEARS TO US, THE A SSESSEE IS NOT SERIOUS OR EARNEST IN PROSECUTING ITS APPEAL. AS CLARIFIED BY THE HON BLE APEX COURT IN CIT V. B.N. BHATTARCHARYA [1979] 118 ITR 461 (SC), PREFERRING AN APPEAL DOES NOT MEAN MERE FILING OF THE APPEAL MEMO, BUT EFFECTIVELY PURSUING IT. WE , THEREFORE, FOLLOWING THE DECISIONS BY THE HONBLE MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT IN THE CASE O F 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 O F CIT VS. MULTIPLAN INDIA (P.) LTD ., REPORTED AT 38 ITD 320, DISMISSES THE ASSESSEES AP PEAL AS UN-ADMITTED FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION. 3. IN THE RESULT, THE ASSESSEE APPEAL IS DISMISSED IN LIMINE . ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON OCTOBER 10, 2 013 SD/- SD/- (D. MANMOHAN) (SANJAY ARORA) / VICE PRESIDENT / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ) + MUMBAI; 2 DATED : 10.10.2013 3 ITA NO. 3945/MUM/2012 (A.Y. 2008-09) MADHU FINANCE VS. ITO *3! ROSHANI , SR. PS ! ' #$%& ' &$ ! COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. '$ / THE APPELLANT 2. %&'$ / THE RESPONDENT 3. ) 4, 5 6 / THE CIT(A) 4. ) 4, / CIT - CONCERNED 5. 7*89%3,3:; -:;0 ) + / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. 9<=+ ! GUARD FILE ! ( / BY ORDER, )/(* + (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , ) + / ITAT, MUMBAI