AJAYDEEP NEW TOWN DEVELOPERS, NAVI MUMBAI V. ACIT 10(3), MUMBAI

ITA 4036/MUM/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 55740 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 5 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 02-11-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 02-11-2011
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 18-05-2010
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PA RTHASARATHY NAIK

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH A : MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI D.K. AGARWAL, ( JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI RAJENDRA SINGH,(ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) ITA NO.4036/MUM/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007-08 M/S. AJAYDEEP NEW TOWN DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD. E-5, 1.2, SECTOR-1, VASHI NAVI MUMBAI-400 703. ..( APPELLANT ) P.A. NO. (AAACA 9849 H) VS. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -10(3) MUMBAI-. ..( RESPONDENT ) APPELLANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY : SHRI PA RTHASARATHY NAIK DATE OF HEARING : 2.11.2011 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 2 ND NOVEMBER, 2011 O R D E R PER RAJENDRA SINGH (AM). THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER D ATED 11.3.2010 OF CIT(A) FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08. T HE ASSESSEE IN THIS APPEAL HAS CHALLENGED CHALLENGED THE ADHOC DISA LLOWANCE OF TRUCK EXPENSES. HOWEVER, NO ONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE TO REPRESENT THE CASE WHEN THE APPEAL CAME UP FOR HEARI NG TODAY I.E. ON 2.11.2007. THE NOTICE OF HEARING HAD BEEN SENT WE LL IN ADVANCE BY RPAD AND THE SAME WAS NOT RETURNED BY THE POSTAL AUTHO RITIES AND THEREFORE, NOTICE IS DEEMED TO HAVE BEEN SERVED. FUR THER ON DAYS ITA NO.4036/M/10 A.Y:07-08 2 WHEN THE BENCH DID NOT FUNCTION THE ASSESSEE HAD BEEN IN FORMED OF THE NEXT DATE OF HEARING THROUGH NOTICE BOARD BUT NE ITHER SOMEONE HAS APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE NOR HAS ANY ADJOUR NMENT APPLICATION BEEN RECEIVED. IT CAN, THEREFORE, BE REASO NABLY BE CONCLUDED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED IN PROSECUTING THE APPEAL. THE APPEAL DOES NOT MEAN ONLY FILING OF MEMO RANDUM OF APPEAL BUT ALSO PURSUING IT EFFECTIVELY AS HELD BY HON'B LE SUPREME COURT IN CASE OF B.N. BHATACHARJEE AND ANR. (118 ITR 4 61) (AT PAGES 477/478). IN SUCH CASES WHERE AN APPELLANT IS NOT INTE RESTED IN PROSECUTION OF APPEAL COURT/TRIBUNAL HAVE INHERENT P OWER TO DISMISS THE PROCEEDINGS FOR NON-PROSECUTION AS HELD BY HONBLE HI GH COURT OF MUMBAI IN CASE OF M/S. CHEMIPOL VS. UNION OF INDIA IN E XCISE APPEAL NO.62/2009. ON THE FACTS OF THIS CASE WE ARE CONVINCED TH AT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED IN PURSUING THE APPEAL. WE, TH EREFORE, DISMISS THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE AS UNADMITTED. 2. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE STANDS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 2.11.2011. SD/- SD/- (D.K. AGARWAL) (RAJENDRA SINGH ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI, DATED: 2.11.2011. JV. ITA NO.4036/M/10 A.Y:07-08 3 COPY TO: THE APPELLANT THE RESPONDENT THE CIT, CONCERNED, MUMBAI THE CIT(A) CONCERNED, MUMBAI THE DR BENCH TRUE COPY BY ORDER DY/ASSTT. REGISTRAR, ITAT, MUMBAI.