RAKESHKUMAR WADHAWAN, MUMBAI V. ACIT CEN CIR 37, MUMBAI

ITA 5999/MUM/2009

• Counselvise Citation: [2010] 136 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1334 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 12 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-06-2010
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 12-11-2009
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: JIT ENDRA YADAVDR

Judgement Text

1 ITA NO 599 9/MUM/2009 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH D MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI R S PADVEKAR, JM & SHRI B RAMAKOTAIAH, AM ITA NO. 5999/MUM/2009 (ASST YEAR 2005-06 ) RAKESHKUMAR WADHAWAN 9 TH FLOOR,DHEERAJ ARMA ANNAT KANEKAR MARG STATION ROAD, BANDRA (E) MUMBAI 51` VS THE ASST COMMR OF INCOME TAX CEN.CIR 37 MUMBAI (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN AAEPW7656G ASSESSEE BY: NONE REVENUE BY: SHRI JIT ENDRA YADAV(DR) O R D E R PER R S PADVEKAR: THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THIS APPEAL CHALLENGING THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE LD CIT(A)- CENTRAL-VIII, MUMBAI FOR THE ASSESSM ENT YEAR 2005-06 DATED 14.7.209. 2 WHEN THIS APPEAL WAS CALLED FOR HEARING ON 21.6.2 010, THE LD DR FOR THE REVENUE WAS PRESENT AND NONE WAS PRESENT FOR TH E ASSESSEE. 3 FROM THE RECORD, IT IS SEEN THAT THE NOTICE OF H EARING WAS SENT TO THE ASSESSEE AS PER THE ADDRESS GIVEN IN FORM 36 BY R.P .A.D ON 21.05.2010 INTIMATING THE DATE OF HEARING OF THIS APPEAL. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT EVEN FILED ANY APPLICATION SEEKING ADJOURNMENT NOR REMAI N PRESENT FOR THE HEARING. WE ARE, THEREFORE, OF THE OPINION THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED IN PROSECUTING THIS APPEAL; ACCORDINGLY, WE DISMISS THE APPEAL AS NOT ADMITTED BY FOLLOWING THE DECISIONS OF THE HON BLE MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT IN ESTATE OF LATE TUKOJIRAO HOLKAR VS CWT (22 3 ITR 480(MP) AND BY THE DELHI BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF CIT VS MULTIPLAN (INDIA) PVT LTD (38 ITD 320 (DEL). 2 ITA NO 599 9/MUM/2009 4. IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. B N BHATTACHARGEE & ANOTH ER, (1979) 118 ITR 461 (SC), THEIR LORDSHIPS OF SUPREME COURT AT PAGE 477-78 HAS HELD THAT THE APPEAL DOES NOT MERELY MEAN FILING OF THE MEMO OF APPEAL BUT EFFECTIVELY PURSUING THE SAME. WE ARE THEREFORE, CONSTRAINED TO PRESUME THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED IN PURSUING THIS APPEAL. 5 IN THE RESULT, THE ASSESSEES APPEAL STANDS DISMI SSED IN LIMINE . ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 25 TH ,JUNE 2010. SD/- SD/- ( B RAMAKOTAIAH ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (R S PADVEKAR ) JUDICIAL MEMBER PLACE: MUMBAI : DATED: 25 TH , JUNE 2010 RAJ* COPY FORWARDED TO: 1 APPELLANT 2 RESPONDENT 3 CIT 4 CIT(A) 5 DR /TRUE COPY/ BY ORDER DY /AR, ITAT, MUMBAI