M/S. VARSHRAJ EXPORTS PVT. LTD, MUMBAI V. THE ITO 8(3)-4, MUMBAI

ITA 4649/MUM/2007

• Counselvise Citation: [2010] 136 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1464 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 11 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-06-2010
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: L
• Assessment Year: 2002-2003
• Appeal Filed On: 21-06-2007
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: AARI PRASAD

Judgement Text

ITA NO. 4649/MUM/07 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH L MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI R S PADVEKAR, JM & SHRI R K PANDA, AM ITA NO. 4649/MUM/2007 (ASST YEAR 2002-03 ) VARSHRAJ EXPORTS P LTD BLD 7C SENIOR ESTATE PARSI PANCHAYAT ROAD ANDHERI (E), MUMBAI VS THE IN COME TAX OFFICER 8(3)(4), MUMBAI (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN AAACV4644E ASSESSEE BY: NONE REVENUE BY: SHRI AARI PRASAD O R D E R PER R S PADVEKAR: THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THIS APPEAL CHALLENGING THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE LD CIT(A)-XXIX, MUMBAI DATED 2.3.2007 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03. 2 WHEN THIS APPEAL WAS CALLED FOR HEARING ON 14.6.2 010, THE LD DR FOR THE REVENUE WAS PRESENT AND NONE WAS PRESENT FOR TH E ASSESSEE. 3 FROM THE RECORD, IT IS SEEN THAT THE NOTICE OF H EARING WAS SENT TO THE ASSESSEE AS PER THE ADDRESS GIVEN IN FORM 36 BY R.P .A.D ON 29.3.2010 INTIMATING THE DATE OF HEARING OF THIS APPEAL. WE A LSO FIND FROM RECORD THAT IN EARLIER OCCASIONS ALSO THE HEARING WAS ADJOURNED . WE ARE THEREFORE, OF THE OPINION THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED IN PROSECUTING THIS APPEAL; ACCORDINGLY, WE DISMISS THE APPEAL AS NOT ADMITTED BY FOLLOWING THE DECISIONS OF THE HONBLE MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT IN ESTATE OF LATE ITA NO. 4649/MUM/07 2 TUKOJIRAO HOLKAR VS CWT(223 ITR 480(MP) AND BY THE DELHI BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF CIT VS MULTIPLAN (INDIA) PV T LTD (38 ITD 320 (DEL). 4. IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. B N BHATTACHARGEE & ANOTH ER, (1979) 118 ITR 461 (SC), THEIR LORDSHIPS OF SUPREME COURT AT PAGE 477-78 HAS HELD THAT THE APPEAL DOES NOT MERELY MEAN FILING OF THE MEMO OF APPEAL BUT EFFECTIVELY PURSUING THE SAME. WE ARE THEREFORE, CONSTRAINED TO PRESUME THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED IN PURSUING THIS APPEAL. 5 IN THE RESULT, THE ASSESSEES APPEAL STANDS DISMI SSED IN LIMINE. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 18 TH DAY OF JUNE 2010. SD/- SD/- ( R K PANDA ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (R S PADVEKAR ) JUDICIAL MEMBER PLACE: MUMBAI : DATED: 18 TH , JUNE 2010 RAJ* COPY FORWARDED TO: 1 APPELLANT 2 RESPONDENT 3 CIT 4 CIT(A) 5 DR /TRUE COPY/ BY ORDER DY /AR, ITAT, MUMBAI