BCD TRAVEL INDIA P.LTD ( ORIGINALLY KNOWN AS ETI TRAVEL SOLUTIONS P.LTD, MUMBAI V. ITO 8(1)(3), MUMBAI

ITA 555/MUM/2010

• Counselvise Citation: 55519914 RSA 2010
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 6 month(s) 18 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 09-08-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: H
• Next Hearing Date: 22-09-2015
• Assessment Year: 2003-2004
• Appeal Filed On: 22-01-2010
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: P C MAURYA

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH D : MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI D.K. AGARWAL, (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI RAJENDRA SINGH,(ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) ITA NO.555/MUM/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2003-04 M/S. BCD TRAVEL INDIA PVT. LTD. (ORIGINALLY KNOWN AS ETI TRAVEL SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD. ) 202, PRAMUKH PLAZA CHAKALA, ANDHERI (E) MUMBAI-400 099. ..( APPELLANT ) P.A. NO. (AAACF 1613 R) VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 8(1)(3) MUMBAI. ..( RESPONDENT ) APPELLANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY : SHRI P. C. MAURYA DATE OF HEARING : 9.8.2011 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 9 TH AUGUST, 2011 O R D E R PER RAJENDRA SINGH (AM). THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 19.6.2007 OF CIT(A) FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04 . THE ASSESSEE IN THIS APPEAL HAS RAISED DISPUTES ON TWO DIFFERENT GROUNDS . HOWEVER, NO-ONE APPEARED TO REPRESENT THE CASE ON BEHALF OF THE ASS ESSEE THOUGH THE NOTICE OF HEARING HAD BEEN GIVEN WELL IN ADVANCE. THE PER USAL OF THE RECORDS SHOWS THAT EARLIER ALSO ASSESSEE HAD ONLY REQUESTED FOR A DJOURNMENT AND DID NOT PARTICIPATE IN THE PROCEEDINGS. THIS TIME NEITHER SOMEONE HAS APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE NOR ANY ADJOURNMENT APPLICAT ION HAS BEEN RECEIVED. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES IT CAN BE REASONABLY CONC LUDED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED IN PROSECUTING THE APPEAL. THE AP PEAL DOES NOT MEAN ONLY ITA NO.555/M/10 A.Y:03-04 2 FILING OF MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL BUT ALSO PURSUING IT EFFECTIVELY AS HELD BY HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN CASE OF B.N. BHATACHARJEE A ND ANR. (118 ITR 461) (AT PAGES 477/478). IN SUCH CASES WHERE AN APPELLA NT IS NOT INTERESTED IN PROSECUTION OF APPEAL COURT/TRIBUNAL HAVE INHEREN T POWER TO DISMISS THE PROCEEDINGS FOR NON-PROSECUTION AS HELD BY HONBLE H IGH COURT OF MUMBAI IN CASE OF M/S. CHEMIPOL VS. UNION OF INDIA IN EXCISE APPEAL NO.62/2009. ON THE FACTS OF THIS CASE WE ARE CONVINCED THAT THE AS SESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED IN PURSUING THE APPEAL. WE, THEREFORE, DISMISS THE AP PEAL OF THE ASSESSEE AS UNADMITTED. 2. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE STANDS DIS MISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 9.8.2011. SD/- SD/- (D.K. AGARWAL) (RAJENDRA SINGH ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI, DATED: 9.8.2011. JV. COPY TO: THE APPELLANT THE RESPONDENT THE CIT, CONCERNED, MUMBAI THE CIT(A) CONCERNED, MUMBAI THE DR BENCH TRUE COPY BY ORDER DY/ASSTT. REGISTRAR, ITAT, MUMBAI.