MAFATLAL INDUSTRIES LTD, MUMBAI V. ITO 6(3)(2), MUMBAI

ITA 4029/MUM/2009

• Counselvise Citation: [2010] 136 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1758 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 11 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 11-06-2010
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Next Hearing Date: 13-04-2011
• Assessment Year: 2003-2004
• Appeal Filed On: 26-06-2009
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: P PEERYA

Judgement Text

ITA NO. 4029/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. 4029/MUM/2009 (ASST YEAR 2003-04 ) MAFATLAL INDUSTRIES LTD MAFTLAL HOUSE BACKBAY RECLAMATION MUMBAI 20 VS THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 6(3)(2), MUMBAI (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN AAACM2813L ASSESSEE BY: NONE REVENUE 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)-XXVII, MUMBAI DATED 30.3.200 9 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06. 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. THER E IS NOT EVEN AN ADJOURNMENT APPLICATION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. WE THEREFORE, OF THE OPINION THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED IN PROSECUTING THIS APPEAL; ACCORDINGLY, WE DISMISS THE APPEAL AS NOT ADMITTED BY FOLLOWING THE DECISIONS OF THE HONBLE MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT IN ESTATE OF LATE TUKOJIRAO HOLKAR VS CWT(223 ITR 480(MP) AND BY THE DELHI BENCH OF THE T RIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF CIT VS MULTIPLAN (INDIA) PVT LTD (38 ITD 320 (DEL). ITA NO. 4029/MUM/2009 2 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 DISMISSED 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: 11 TH , 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