HALDYN GLASS LTD, MUMBAI V. ITO 9(2)1, MUMBAI

ITA 6058/MUM/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 119 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7622 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 7 month(s) 22 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-03-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: H
• Next Hearing Date: 26-02-2013
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 06-08-2010
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL

Judgement Text

HALDYN GLASS LTD ITA NO. 6058/MUM/2010 (ASST YEAR 2004-05) IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI H BENCH MUMBAI BENCHES, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM & SHRI RAJENDRA, AM ITA NO. 6058/MUM/2010 (ASST YEAR 2004-05) HALDYN GLASS LTD 9 GAYATRI COMMERCIAL COMPLEX ANDHERI KURLA ROAD, MAROL, NAKA ANDHERI (E) MUMBAI 59 VS THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 9(2)(1), MUMBAI (APPELLANT ) (RESPONDENT) PAN NO. AAACH0411P ASSESSEE BY NONE REVENUE BY SHRI V V SHASTRI DT.OF HEARING 22 ND MAR 2012 DT OF PRONOUNCEMENT 28 TH , MARCH 2012 ORDER PER RAJENDRA, AM THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAIN ST THE ORDER DATED 11 TH FEB 2010 OF THE CIT(A) FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05 . 2 THIS APPEAL WAS FIXED FOR HEARING ON 22 ND MARCH 2012. WE FIND FROM THE ORDER SHEET THAT IN EARLIER OCCASION I.E. ON 10 TH OCT 2011, THE HEARING WAS ADJOURNED TO 2.11.2011 AT THE REQUEST OF THE ASESSEES COUNSEL V IDE LETTER DT 8.10.2011. DESPITE NOTICE OF HEARING DISPLAYED ON THE NOTICE BOARD, NO NE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. IT APPEARS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTE RESTED IN THE PROSECUTION OF THE CASE. WE FIND THAT THE RATIO EMANATING FROM THE DE CISION RENDERED BY HONBLE MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF LATE TUKOJ IRAO HOLKAR VS. COMMISSIONER OF HALDYN GLASS LTD ITA NO. 6058/MUM/2010 (ASST YEAR 2004-05) 2 WEALTH TAX 223 ITR 480 AND THE TRIBUNAL DECISION IN CIT VS. MULTIPLAN INDIA LIMITED 38 ITD 320 IS THAT THE APPEAL CAN BE DISMISSED FOR NON -PROSECUTION. HENCE, FOLLOWING THE PRECEDENT, WE DISMISS THIS APPEAL FOR NON-PROSE CUTION IN LIMINE. 3 HOWEVER, IF THE ASSESSEE THROUGH PROPER APPLICATI ON CAN SATISFY THE TRIBUNAL FOR SUCH NON APPEARANCE ON THE DATE OF HEARING, THE TRIBUNAL MAY AT ITS DISCRETION RECALL THIS ORDER. 4 IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE I S DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THIS 28 TH , DAY OF MAR 2012 SD/ SD/- ( VIJAY PAL RAO ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ( RAJENDRA ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER PLACE: MUMBAI : DATED: 28 TH , MAR 2012 RAJ* COPY FORWARDED TO: 1 APPELLANT 2 RESPONDENT 3 CIT 4 CIT(A) 5 DR /TRUE COPY/ BY ORDER DY /AR, ITAT, MUMBAI