Shri Prabhatkumar C.Pada, Surat V. The Income tax Officer,Ward-8(2), Surat

ITA 426/AHD/2010

• Counselvise Citation: 42620514 RSA 2010
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 3 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-05-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 09-02-2010
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: B L YADAV

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D BENCH AHMEDABAD (BEFORE SHRI MUKUL KUMAR SHRAWAT, JM AND SHRI A. MO HAN ALANKAMONY, AM) ITA NO.426/AHD/2010 A. Y.: 2006-07 SHRI PRABHATKUMAR C. PANDA, 2 ND FLOOR, SANT ASHISH COMPLEX, AMROLI CHAR RASTA, AMROLI, SURAT PA NO. AIYPP 0857 G VS THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 8 (2), SURAT (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY NONE RESPONDENT BY SHRI B. L. YADAV, DR DATE OF HEARING: 28-05-2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 28 -05-2012 O R D E R PER A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY: THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) -V, SURAT IN APPEAL NO.CAS-V/60/09-10 DATED 30-11-2009, FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. 2. AT THE TIME OF HEARING NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ENVELOPE CONTAINING THE NOTICE ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE INTIMATING THE DATE OF HEARING FIXED FOR TODAY I.E. 28-05-2012 IS RETURNED BACK BY THE POSTAL AUTHORITIES WITH THE RE MARKS LEFT W/P R.T.S.. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT INTIMATED THE TRIBUNA L REGARDING ANY CHANGE OF HIS ADDRESS. ON PERUSING THE RECORDS, IT IS EVIDENT FROM THE CONDUCT OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NO MOR E INTERESTED IN PROSECUTING HIS APPEAL. THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT I N THE CASE OF ITA NO.426/AHD/2010 (AY 2006-07) SHRI PRABHATKUMAR C. PANDA VS ITO, W-8(2), SURAT 2 CIT VS B. N. BHATTACHARGEE AND OTHERS, 118 ITR 461 OBSERVED THAT PREFERRING AN APPEAL, MEANS EFFECTIVELY PURSUING IT . THE HONBLE M. P. HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF ESTATE OF LATE TUKOJIRAO HOLKAR VS COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX, 223 ITR 480 DISMISSED T HE REFERENCE FILED AT THE INSTANCE OF THE ASSESSEE FOR DEFAULT A ND FOR NOT TAKING NECESSARY STEPS. CONSIDERING THE CONDUCT OF THE ASS ESSEE IN THE PRESENT CIRCUMSTANCE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE A SSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED IN PROSECUTING THE APPEAL. THEREFORE, FO LLOWING THE ORDER OF ITAT DELHI BENCH IN THE CASE OF CIT VS MULTIPLAN IN DIA (PVT.) LTD., 38 ITD 320 (DEL) AND THE DECISIONS CITED ABOVE, WE HER EBY DISMISS THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR WANT OF PROSECUTIO N. 3. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMIS SED IN LIMINE. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 28-05-2012 SD/- SD/- (MUKUL KUMAR SHRAWAT) JUDICIAL MEMBER (A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER LAKSHMIKANT DEKA/- COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT CONCERNED 4. THE CIT(A) CONCERNED 5. THE DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER DY. REGISTRAR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD ITA NO.426/AHD/2010 (AY 2006-07) SHRI PRABHATKUMAR C. PANDA VS ITO, W-8(2), SURAT 3 1. NO DICTATION: APPLIED MULTIPLAN. 2. DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE T HE DICTATING MEMBER: 28-05-12 OTHER MEMBER: 3. DATE ON WHICH APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR. P. S./P.S.: 4. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE TH E DICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT: 5. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE S R. P.S./P.S.: 6. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK: 7. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK: 8. THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER: 9. DATE OF DESPATCH OF THE ORDER: