ATUL C. KAMDAR, MUMBAI V. ITO 13(2)(3), MUMBAI

ITA 4359/MUM/2009

• Counselvise Citation: [2010] 136 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1546 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 10 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 04-06-2010
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 17-07-2009
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PEEYUSH JAIN
• Keywords: Condonation of delay

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH A, MUMBAI. BEFORE SHRI D. MANMOHAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI J. SUDHAKAR REDDY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 4359 /MUM/2009. ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2005-06. SHRI ATUL C. KAMDAR, THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, 403, 4 TH FLOOR, YOGESHWAR, VS. 13(2)(3), MUMBAI. 135/139, KAZI SAYED STREET, MUMBAI 400 003. PAN : AADPK4797M APPELLANT RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY : NONE. RESPONDENT BY : SHRI PEEYUSH JAIN. 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)-XIII, MUMBAI DATED 05-03- 2009 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. 2. NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE DESPITE ISSUAL OF NOTICE BY RPAD. THERE IS NO REQUEST FOR ADJOURNMENT NOR HAS ANY COUNSEL FILED HIS VAKALATNAMA. IT IS ALSO NOTICED THAT THE APPEAL IS TIME BARRED BY 24 DAYS. NO REQUEST FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY WAS MA DE BY THE ASSESSEE. FORM NO. 35 HAS ALSO NOT BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND FORM NO. 36 WAS NOT SIGNED BY THE ASSESSEE. THESE DEFECTS WERE INFO RMED BY THE REGISTRY BUT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT RECTIFIED THE DEFECTS. TH US WE COME TO A CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERES TED IN PROSECUTING THE 2 APPEAL. THEREFORE, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECIS ION 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 4 TH DAY OF JUNE, 2010. SD/- SD/- (D. MANMOHAN) (J. SUDHAKAR REDDY) VICE PRESIDENT. ACCOUNTANT MEMBER. MUMBAI, DATED : 4 TH JUNE, 2010. 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.