M/S. STARLIGHT, MUMBAI V. THE ACIT RG 16(3), MUMBAI

ITA 5604/MUM/2005

• Counselvise Citation: [2010] 136 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7508 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 5 month(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-02-2010
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: H
• Next Hearing Date: 22-02-2010
• Assessment Year: 1997-1998
• Appeal Filed On: 31-08-2005
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S K MOHANTY

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL H BENCH: MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI D MANMOHAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO 5604/MUM/2005 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 1997-98) STARLITE , MAJESTIC SHOPPING CENTRE, 8TH FLOOR, GIRGAUM ROAD, MUMBAI -400 004 PAN: AALFS 9218 D VS ACIT-RANGE 16(3), MATRU MANDIR, TARDEO, MUMBAI -400 004 APPELLANT RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY: NONE RESPONDENT BY: SHRI S K MOHANTY ORDER PER PRAMOD KUMAR 1. THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A)- XVII MUMBAI DATED 07.07.2005 FOR THE ASSESS MENT YEAR 1997-98. 2. AT THE TIME OF HEARING FIXED IN THIS CASE ON 22. 02.2010, NOBODY HAS PUT IN APPEARANCE ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE NOR ANY APP LICATION SEEKING ADJOURNMENT OF THE SAID HEARING IS FILED DESPITE TH E FACT THAT NOTICE OF THE SAID HEARING SENT TO THE ASSESSEE BY RPAD HAS BEEN DULY SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE, THE PROOF OF WHICH IS AVAILABLE ON RECORD . IT APPEARS THAT THE ASSESSEE THUS IS NOT SERIOUSLY INTERESTED IN PROSEC UTING THIS APPEAL FILED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 3. CONSIDERING THE FACTS NARRATED ABOVE AND KEEPING IN MIND THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 19(2) OF THE ITAT RULES AS WERE CONSIDERED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN CIT VS MULTIPLAN (INDIA) PVT LTD (38 ITD 320)(DEL) AND BY HONBLE MADHYA PRADESH ITA 5604/M/2005 STARLITE 2 HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF LATE TUKOJIRAO HOLKAR VS. CWT (223 ITR 480)(MP) THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS TREATED AS UNADMITTE D AND DISMISSED FOR NON- PROSECUTION. THE ASSESSEE IF SO ADVISED, SHALL BE FREE TO MOVE THE TRIBUNAL EXPLAINING THE REASONS FOR NON-COMPLIANCES AND FOR RECALLING THIS ORDER AND IF THE BENCH IS SO SATISFIED, THEN THIS ORDER MAY BE R ECALLED. 4. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISS ED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT TODAY ON THE 26 TH FEBRUARY 2010. SD/- (D MANMOHAN) VICE PRESIDENT SD/- (PRAMOD KUMAR) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI, DATE: 26TH FEBRUARY 2010 COPY TO:- 1) THE APPELLANT. 2) THE RESPONDENT. 3) THE CIT (A)-XVII, MUMBAI. 4) THE CIT MUMBAI CITY- XVI, MUMBAI. 5) THE D.R. H BENCH, ITAT, MUMBAI. BY ORDER / / TRUE COPY / / ASSTT. REGISTRAR CHAVAN* I.T.A.T., MUMBAI ITA 5604/M/2005 STARLITE 3 SR.N. EPISODE OF AN ORDER DATE INITIALS CONCERNED 1 DRAFT DICTATED ON 25.2.2010 SR.PS 2 DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR 25.2.2010 SR.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 SR.PS 6 KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT ON SR.PS 7 FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK SR.PS 8 DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK 9 DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER