PLATINUM ASSET MANAGEMENT LTD. A/C THE PLATINUM FUND LTD., MUMBAI V. DDIT (IT) 4(2), MUMBAI

ITA 574/MUM/2011

• Counselvise Citation: 57419914 RSA 2011
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 7 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-08-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 21-08-2013
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 20-01-2011
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL

Judgement Text

, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE S/SHRI B.R.MITTAL,(JM) AND RAJENDRA (AM) . . , , ./I.T.A. NO.574/MUM/2011 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR:2004-05) PLATINUM ASSET MANAGEMENT LTD., A/C THE PLATINUM FUND LIMITED DELOITTE HASKINS AND SELLS, C/O S.B.BILLIMORIA AND CO., 264-265, VASWANI CHAMBER, DR.ANNIE BESANT ROAD, WORLI, MUMBAI-400018 / VS. THE DEP UTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) 4(2) GROUND FLOOR, SCINDIA HOUSE, N M ROAD, BALLARD ESTATE, MUMBAI-400038. ( & / APPELLANT) .. ( ' & / RESPONDENT) ./ ./PAN/GIR NO. : AACCP6553G & / APPELLANT BY : NONE ' & * /RESPONDENT : SHRI PRABHAT JHA * - / DATE OF HEARING : 21.8.2013 * - /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 21.8.2013 / O R D E R PER B.R.MITTAL, JM: THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THIS APPEAL FOR ASSESSMENT Y EAR 2004-05 AGAINST ORDER DATED 3.11.2010 OF LD CIT(A)-XI, MUMBAI. 2. THE NOTICE OF HEARING BY RPAD WAS SENT TO THE AS SESSEE ON THE ADDRESS GIVEN IN COLUMN NO.10 OF FORM NO.36 FIXING THE HEARING ON 2 1.08.2013. IT IS EVIDENT FROM THE RECORD THAT NOTICE SENT TO ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED B ACK IN THE OFFICE OF TRIBUNAL WITH THE POSTAL REMARK ADDRESSEE LEFT. ASSESSEE ALSO DID NOT GIVE ITS NEW ADDRESS, IF ANY. ON 21.8.2013, AT THE TIME OF HEARING, NEITHER ANYBODY APPEARED ON BEHALF OF ASSESSEE NOR THERE IS ANY APPLICATION FOR ADJOURNMENT. IT APPEA RS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED IN PROSECUTING ITS 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 ITA NO.574/MUM/2011 2 MEAN MERELY FILING OF THE APPEAL BUT EFFECTIVELY PU RSUING IT . WE ARE ALSO SUPPORTED BY 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 OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISS ED FOR NON-PROSECUTION. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 21TH AUG, 20 13 * 1 2 21TH AUG, 2013 * SD SD ( /RAJENDRA ) ( . . /B.R.MITTAL) / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER / JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI; 2 DATED 21/ 08/2013 . . ./ SRL , SR. PS / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. & / THE APPELLANT 2. ' & / THE RESPONDENT. 3. 6 ( ) / THE CIT(A)- CONCERNED 4. 6 / CIT CONCERNED 5. 7 '9 , - 9 , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI CONCERNED 6. / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, TRUE COPY (ASSTT. REGISTRAR) - 9 , /ITAT, MUMBAI