SHEHABIAH TRADING & INVESTMENTS CO. P. LTD, MUMBAI V. ITO 5(3)(4), MUMBAI

ITA 5274/MUM/2009

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 56030 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 2 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-11-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Next Hearing Date: 06-01-2014
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 14-09-2009
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: G P TRIVEDI

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH E MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI B.R. MITTAL (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI T.R. SOOD (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) ITA NO. 5274/MUM/2009 ASSESSMENT YEAR- 2005-06 A N D ITA NO. 1480/MUM/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR-2006-07 MS/. SHEHABIAH TRADING & INVESTMENT CO. PVT. LTD., 106, CHURCHGATE CHAMBERS, 5, NEW MARINE LINES, MUMBAI-400 020 PAN-AAFCS 8647D VS. THE ITO 5(3)(4), MUMBAI (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: NONE RESPONDENT BY: SHRI G.P. TRIVEDI DATE OF HEARING :16.11.2011 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT:18.11.2011 O R D E R PER BENCH : THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THESE TWO APPEALS FOR ASSESS MENT YEARS 2005- 06 AND 2006-07 AGAINST ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) DT.31.7. 2009 & 31.12.2009 RESPECTIVELY DISPUTING CONFIRMATION OF ADDITION MAD E BY AO. 2. THESE APPEALS WERE FIXED FOR HEARING ON 16 TH NOVEMBER, 2011 AFTER GIVING NOTICE TO ASSESSEE. IT IS RELEVANT TO STATE THAT THESE APPEALS WERE EARLIER FIXED FOR HEARING ON 16.6.2011 AND AT THE R EQUEST OF ASSESSEES COUNSEL, BOTH APPEALS WERE ADJOURNED TO 15 TH SEPTEMBER, 2011. HOWEVER, ITA NO. 1480/M/10 & ITA NO.5274/M/09 2 BENCH DID NOT FUNCTION ON 15.9.2011 AND THE PARTIES WERE INFORMED THROUGH NOTICE BOARD AND ADJOURNED THE HEARING TO 16.11.201 1. 3. ON THE DATE FIXED FOR, NO ONE IS PRESENT ON BEHA LF OF ASSESSEE. NOR THERE IS ANY APPLICATION FOR ADJOURNMENT. IT IS OB SERVED THAT EARLIER ALSO THESE APPEALS WERE ADJOURNED AT THE REQUEST OF ASSESSEES REPRESENTATIVE. IN VIEW OF ABOVE, IT APPEARS THAT ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTE D IN PROSECUTING THESE APPEALS. HENCE THESE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE LIABLE TO BE DISMISSED FOR NON-PROSECUTION. IN THIS REGARD WE ARE SUPPORTED BY THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF CIT VS B.N. BHATTACHARGEE AND ANOTHER, REPORTED IN 118 ITR 460 (RELEVANT PAGES 477 & 478) WHEREIN THEIR LORDSHIPS HAVE HELD THAT: THE APPEAL DOES NOT MEAN MERELY FILING OF THE APPE AL BUT EFFECTIVELY PURSUING IT. 4. IN THIS REGARD WE ARE ALSO SUPPORTED BY THE DECIS ION IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. MULTIPLAN INDIA (P) LTD. 38 ITD 320 (DEL). 5. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE AND ALSO CONSIDERING THE PRO VISION OF RULE 19 OF THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RULES, 1963, BOTH THESE APPE ALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED. 6. IN THE RESULT, BOTH APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE D ISMISSED FOR NON- PROSECUTION. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THIS 18 TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2011 SD/- SD/ ( T.R. SOOD) (B.R. MITTAL ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI, DATED 18 TH NOVEMBER, 2011 RJ ITA NO. 1480/M/10 & ITA NO.5274/M/09 3 COPY TO : 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT-CONCERNED 4. THE CIT(A)-CONCERNED 5. THE DR E BENCH TRUE COPY BY ORDER ASSTT. REGISTRAR, I.T.A.T, MUMBAI ITA NO. 1480/M/10 & ITA NO.5274/M/09 4 DATE INITIALS 1. DRAFT DICTATED ON: 16.11.2011 SR. PS/PS 2. DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR: 16.11.2011 SR. PS/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. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON: SR. PS/PS 7. FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK: 8. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK: SR. PS/PS 9. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO AR 10. DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER: