RAJ TRUST, BANGALORE V. JCIT RG 19(1), MUMBAI

ITA 5248/MUM/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 119 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9350 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 4 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 04-12-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 09-12-2013
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 08-07-2011
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: A B KOLI
• Keywords: Non compliance

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH D, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI D.K. AGARWAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI P.M.JAGTAP, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER. I.T.A. NO.5248/MUM/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR :2004-05. M/S RAJ TRUST, JT. COMMISSIONER OF M/S K.R. PRASAD, VS. INCOME TAX, ADVOCATES & TAX CONSULTANTS, RANGE 19(1), 9/3, OLD MADRAS BANK ROAD, MUMBAI. BANGALAORE 560 001. PAN AAATR 0662B APPELLANT. RESPONDENT . APPELLANT BY : NONE. RESPONDENT BY : SHRI A.B.KOLI. DATE OF HEARING : 04-12-2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 04-12-2012. O R D E R PER P.M. JAGTAP, A.M. : THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAIN ST THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(APPEALS)-I, BANGALORE DATED 16-03-2011. 2. IN THIS CASE NONE HAS APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE AT THE TIME OF HEARING FIXED TODAY I.E. ON 04-12-2012 NOR ANY APPL ICATION FOR ADJOURNMENT HAS BEEN MOVED INSPITE OF THE FACT THAT THE NOTICE OF T HE SAID HEARING WAS DULY GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE THROUGH NOTICE BOARD WELL IN ADVANCE. IT APPEARS THAT THE ASSESSEE THUS IS NOT SERIOUSLY INTERESTED IN PROSECUTING THIS APP EAL FILED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 2 ITA NO.5248/MUM/2011 3. CONSIDERING THE FACTS NARRATED ABOVE AND KEEPING IN MIND THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 19(2) OF THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RULES AS CONSI DERED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. MULTIPLAN (INDIA) P. LTD. 38 ITD 3 20 (DEL.) AND BY HONBLE MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF LATE TUKOJ IRAO HOLKAR 223 ITR 480 (M.P.), THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS TREATED AS U NADMITTED AND DISMISSED FOR NON PROSECUTION. THE ASSESSEE, IF SO ADVISED, SHALL BE FREE TO MOVE THE TRIBUNAL EXPLAINING THE REASONS FOR NON COMPLIANCE AND FOR R ECALLING OF THIS ORDER AND IF THE BENCH IS SO SATISFIED, THEN THIS ORDER MAY BE RECAL LED. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 4 TH DAY OF DEC., 2012. SD/- SD/- (D.K.AGARWAL) (P.M. JAGTAP) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCO UNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI, DATED: 4 TH DEC., 2012. COPY TO : 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. C.I.T. 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, D-BENCH. (TRUE COPY) BY ORD ER ASSTT. REGI STRAR, ITAT, MUMBAI BENCHES, MUMB AI. WAKODE