FARGO MANTLE PRODUCTS P. LTD, MUMBAI V. DCIT 9(1), MUMBAI

ITA 4470/MUM/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 56152 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 6 month(s) 22 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-12-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Next Hearing Date: 13-12-2011
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 01-06-2010
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SANTAM BOSE

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL F BENCH: MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI R.S. PADVEKAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAJENDRA SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NOS.4470 AND 4471/MUM/2010 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-07) FARGO MANTLE PRODUCTS PVT. LTD., 21, SHAKTI NIWAS, RAMCHANDRA LANE (EXTN.), MALAD (W), MUMBAI -400 064 ...... APPELLANT VS DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-9(2), AAYAKAR BHAVAN, M.K. ROAD, MUMBAI -400 020 ..... RESPONDENT PAN: AAACF 0750 D APPELLANT BY: NONE RESPONDENT BY: MR. SANTAM BOSE DATE OF HEARING: 13.12.2011 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 23.12.2011 O R D E R PER BENCH: THESE TWO APPEALS ARE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE CHALLEN GING THE RESPECTIVE ORDERS OF THE LD. CIT (A)-19, MUMBAI FOR THE A.Y. 2006-07 IN RESPECT OF TWO DIFFERENT ORDERS. THESE APPEALS WERE FIXED FOR HEARING ON 13.12.2011. THE LD. D.R. FOR THE REVENUE WAS PR ESENT AND NONE WAS PRESENT FOR THE ASSESSEE. 2. ON THE EARLIER OCCASIONS, THESE APPEALS WERE FIX ED FOR HEARING ON 29.08.2011 AND 18.10.2011. AS PER THE ORDER SHEET NOTING IT IS SEEN THAT ON BOTH THE SAID DATES, AT THE REQUEST OF THE ASSESSEES COUNSEL THESE APPEALS WERE ADJOURNED. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT EVEN FILED ANY ADJOURNMENT APPLICATION. UNDER THE SITUATION, WE H AVE COME TO THE ITA 4470 & 4471/M/2010 FARGO MANTLE PRODUCTS PVT. LTD. 2 CONCLUSION THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED IN P ROSECUTING THESE APPEALS. 3. IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. B. N. BHATTACHARGEE & ANO THER, (1979) 118 ITR 461 THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT HELD THAT THE APPEAL DOES NOT MEAN MERELY FILING OF THE MEMO OR APPEAL BUT SAME M UST BE EFFECTIVELY PURSUED. A RECORD SHOWS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT I NTERESTED IN PURSUING THE APPEALS. AS THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTER ESTED IN PURSUING THESE APPEALS BOTH THE APPEALS ARE DISMISSED FOR NO N-PROSECUTION. 4. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEALS ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS DAY OF 2 3RD DECEMBER, 2011. SD/- SD/- ( RAJENDRA SINGH ) ACCOUTANT MEMBER ( R.S. PADVEKAR ) JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI, DATE : 23RD DECEMBER, 2011 COPY TO:- 1) THE APPELLANT. 2) THE RESPONDENT. 3) THE CIT (A)-19, MUMBAI. 4) THE CIT-9, MUMBAI. 5) THE D.R. F BENCH, MUMBAI. BY ORDER / / TRUE COPY / / ASSTT. REGISTRAR I.T.A.T., MUMBAI *CHAVAN ITA 4470 & 4471/M/2010 FARGO MANTLE PRODUCTS PVT. LTD. 3 SR.N. EPISODE OF AN ORDER DATE INITIALS CONCERNED 1 DRAFT DICTATED ON 13.12.2011 SR.PS 2 DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR 19.12.2011 SR.PS 3 DRAFT PROPOSED & PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER JM/AM 4 DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED BY SECOND MEMBER JM/AM 5 APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.PS/PS SR.PS/PS 6 KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT ON SR.PS/PS 7 FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK SR.PS/PS 8 DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK 9 DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER