DCIT 5(2), MUMBAI V. M/s. PERFECT CIRCLE VICTOR LTD., MUMBAI

ITA 5946/MUM/2005

• Counselvise Citation: 594619914 RSA 2005
• Duration Of Justice: 5 year(s) 7 month(s) 8 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-05-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 05-05-2011
• Assessment Year: 2002-2003
• Appeal Filed On: 05-10-2005
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S S RANA

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI, J. SUDHAKAR REDDY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER A ND SMT. ASHA VIJAYRAGHAVAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 3796/MUM./2009 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2004-05 ) DATE OF HEARING: 5.5.2011 MR. CHETAN M. TANNA PLOTS NO.27/29, JANKIDEVI SCHOOL ROAD, BHIND VERSOVA TEL. EXCHANGE ANDHERI (W), MUMBAI 400 053 PAN AADPT3562F .. APPELLANT V/S INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-20(1)(2), MUMBAI .... RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : NONE REVENUE BY : MR. S.S. RANA O R D E R PER J. SUDHAKAR REDDY, A.M. THIS APPEAL IS PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE, IS DIRECT ED AGAINST THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 22 ND MAY 2009, PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS)-XX, MUMBAI, FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05. 2. BEFORE US, WHEN THE CASE WAS CALLED FOR HEARING, NE ITHER THE ASSESSEE NOR ANY OF HIS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE APPEARED F OR PROSECUTING THIS APPEAL. THERE IS NO PETITION SEEKING ADJOURNMENT EI THER. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE COME TO A CONCLUSION THAT THE ASS ESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED IN PROSECUTING HIS APPEAL. 3. THE HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN M/S. CHEMI POL V/S UNION OF INDIA & ORS., IN CENTRAL EXCISE APPEAL NO.62 OF 200 9, VIDE JUDGMENT DATED MR. CHETAN M. TANNA ITA NO.3796/MUM./2009 2 17 TH SEPTEMBER 2009, CONSIDERED THE JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN CIT V/S S. CHENIAPPA MUDALIAR, AIR 1969 SC 1068, AS WELL AS ANOTHER JUDGMENT IN SUNDERLAL MANNALAL V/S NANDRAMDAS DWARK ADAS, AIR 1958 MP 260, AND OTHER SUPREME COURTS JUDGMENT, HELD AS FO LLOWS:- 6. WE CANNOT ALTOGETHER LOSE SIGHT OF THE RULE THAT EVERY COURT OR TRIBUNAL HAS AN INHERENT POWER TO DISMISS A PROC EEDING FOR NON- PROSECUTION WHEN THE PETITION / APPELLANT BEFORE IT DOES NOT WISH TO PROSECUTE THE PROCEEDINGS. IN SUCH A SITUATION, UNL ESS THE STATUTE CLEARLY REQUIRES THE COURT OR TRIBUNAL TO HEAR THE APPEAL / PROCEEDING AND DECIDE IT ON MERITS, IT CAN DISMISS THE APPEAL / PROCEEDING FOR. THE DELHI BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN M/S. MULTIPLAN INDIA PVT. LTD. (1991) 38 ITD 320 (DEL.), HAS HELD THAT IN A SIMILAR CIRCU MSTANCES, THE APPEAL MAY BE DISMISSED AS UNADMITTED. 4. APPLYING THE AFORESAID PROPOSITIONS OF THE HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT AS WELL AS THE TRIBUNAL, WE TREAT THESE APPEA L AS UNADMITTED AND HOLD THE SAME AS LIABLE TO BE DISMISSED. 5. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 13.5.2011 SD/- ASHA VIJAYRAGHAVAN JUDICIAL MEMBER SD/- J. SUDHAKAR REDDY ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI, DATED: 13.5.2011 COPY TO : (1) THE ASSESSEE (2) THE RESPONDENT (3) THE CIT(A), MUMBAI, CONCERNED (4) THE CIT, MUMBAI CITY CONCERNED (5) THE DR, C BENCH, ITAT, MUMBAI TRUE COPY BY ORDER PRADEEP J. CHOWDHURY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY ITAT, MUMBAI BENCHES, MUMBAI