KADRI CONSULTANTS P LTD, MUMBAI V. ITO 11(2)4, MUMBAI

ITA 4182/MUM/2009

• Counselvise Citation: [2010] 136 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2075 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 10 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 14-05-2010
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 07-07-2009
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: VIKRAM GAUR

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH A, MUMBAI. BEFORE SHRI J. SUDHAKAR REDDY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER. I.T.A. 4182 /MUM/2009. ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2004-05. KADRI CONSULTANTS P. LTD., THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, 4A, SHIV SAGAR ESTATE, VS. 11(2)4, DR. A.E. ROAD, WORLI, MUMBAI. MUMBAI 400 018. PAN AAACK1517B APPELLANT RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY : NONE. RESPONDENT BY : SHRI VIKRAM GAUR. O R D E R PER J. SUDHAKAR REDDY, A.M. THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(APPEALS)-XI, MUMBAI DATED 26-03-20 09 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05. 2. NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. CERTAI N LETTERS WERE FILED, ON THE LETTER-HEAD OF R.N. BHANSALI & CO., C HARTERED ACCOUNTANTS. BUT NO PARTNER OR PROPRIETOR OF THAT C.A. FIRM HAS SIGNED THESE APPLICATIONS. AT THE PLACE WHERE THE PARTNER OR THE AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE, IS SUPPOSED TO SIGN, SOMEBODY HAS S CRIBBLED THE NAME OF THE C.A. FIRM. SUCH LETTERS WITHOUT PROPER VERIFIC ATION OR AUTHENTICATION CANNOT BE TAKEN COGNIZANCE OF. SECTION 288 OF THE I NCOME TAX ACT LAYS DOWN THE LEGAL REQUIREMENT OF APPEARANCE OF AUTHORI SED REPRESENTATIVE. 2 RULE 2(II) OF THE ITAT RULE, 1963 DEFINES AUTHORISE D REPRESENTATIVE. RULE 16 DEALS WITH AUTHORISING REPRESENTATIVE TO APPEAR. SIMILARLY, RULE 17 DEALS WITH THE SAME ISSUE. 3. DESPITE SUCH ELABORATE PROVISIONS IN THE ACT AN D RULES, THE COUNSELS IN THIS CASE CHOSE TO VIOLATE THE RULES, T HAT TOO DESPITE REPEATED REQUESTS FROM THE BENCH. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERES TED IN PROSECUTING THE APPEAL. THEREFORE, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECI SION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF MULTIPLAN (INDIA) LTD. REPO RTED IN 38 ITD 320 AND THE DECISION OF MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT I N THE CASE OF LATE TUKOJIRAO HOLKAR REPORTED IN 223 ITR 480, WE DISMISS THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION. IN THIS REGARD WE ALSO TAKE SUPPORT FROM THE JUDGMENT OF JURISDIC TIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF M/S CHEMIPOL VS. UNION OF INDI A & OTHERS, CENTRAL EXCISE APPEAL NO. 62 OF 2009, ORDER DATED 1 7 TH SEPT., 2009 WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT EVERY COURT OR TRIBUN AL HAS AN INHERENT POWER TO DISMISS THE PROCEEDING FOR NON P ROSECUTION WHEN THE PETITIONER/APPELLANT BEFORE IT DOES NOT WI SH TO PROSECUTE THE PROCEEDING. APPLYING THIS PRINCIPLE, WE DISMISS THE APPEAL. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DI SMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THIS 14 TH DAY OF MAY, 2010. SD/- SD/- (VIJAY PAL RAO) (J. SUDHAKAR REDDY) JUDICIAL MEMBER. ACCOUNTANT MEMBER. MUMBAI, DATED : 14 TH MAY, 2010. WAKODE 3 COPY FORWARDED TO : 1. APPELLANT. 2. RESPONDENT 3. C.I.T. 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, A-BENCH. (TRUE COPY ) BY ORDER ASSTT. REGISTRAR, ITAT, MUMBAI BENCHES, MUMBAI.