DEEPAK B JAIN, MUMBAI V. ITO 25(3)(2), MUMBAI

ITA 5120/MUM/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 119 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8468 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 4 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 06-11-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 06-11-2012
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 01-07-2011
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PARHASARTHY NAIK

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH D BENCH BEFORE SHRI B.R.MITTAL(JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI P.M.JAGTAP (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) ITA NO.5120/MUM/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-07 DEEPAK B JAIN,A-501, YAMUNA, VASANT SAGAR CHS LTD., THAKUR VILLAGE, KANDIVALI(E), MUMBAI PA NO.AACPJ 1817 E ITO 25(3)(2), MUMBAI (APPELLANT) VS. (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY: SHRI PARHASARTHY NAIK DATE OF HEARING: 6.11.2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 6.11.2012 ORDER PER B.R.MITTAL, JM: THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THIS APPEAL FOR ASSESSMENT Y EAR 2006-07 AGAINST ORDER DATED 19.4.2011 OF LD CIT(A)-35, MUMBAI. 2. THIS APPEAL WAS EARLIER FIXED ON 15.5.2012. SIN CE NO ONE WAS PRESENT ON BEHALF OF ASSESSEE, THE HEARING WAS ADJOURNED TO 24.7.2012 AND NOTICE OF HEARING WAS SENT THROUGH RPAD. AS THE BENCH DID NOT FUNCTION ON 24. 7.2012, THE HEARING WAS ADJOURNED TO 6.11.2012 AND INFORMED THE PARTIES THROUGH NOTIC E BOARD. HOWEVER, ON THE DATE FIXED FOR HEARING I.E. ON 6.11.2012, NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF ASSESSEE. NOR THERE IS ANY APPLICATION FOR ADJOURNMENT. IT APPEARS THAT T HE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED IN PROSECUTING THE APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. IN THIS REGARD, WE ARE SUPPORTED BY THE DECISION OF HONBLE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. B.N.BHATTARCHARGEE AND ANOTHER, 118 ITR 460, WHEREIN, THEIR LORDSHIPS HAVE HELD THAT THE APPEAL DOES NOT MEAN MERELY FILING OF THE APPEAL BUT EFFECTIVELY PU RSUING IT . WE ARE ALSO SUPPORTED BY ITA NO.5120/MUM/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-07 2 THE DECISION OF ITAT DELHI IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. M ULTIPLAN INDIA (P)LTD., 38 ITD 320(DEL). 3. IN VIEW OF ABOVE AND ALSO CONSIDERING THE PROVIS IONS OF RULE 19 OF THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RULES, 1963, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS LIA BLE TO BE DISMISSED. 4. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY ASSESSEE IS DISMI SSED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 6 TH NOVEMBER, 2012 SD/- (P.M.JAGTAP) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SD/- (B.R. MITTAL) JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI, DATED 6 TH NOVEMBER, 2012 PARIDA COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS),35, MUMBAI 4. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,25 , MUMBAI 5. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, BENCH D MUMBAI //TRUE COPY// BY ORDER ASSTT. REGISTRAR, ITAT, MUMBAI