SEEMA ABDUL SATTAR MOLVI, MUMBAI V. ITO WD 19(3)(4), MUMBAI

ITA 6371/MUM/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 56059 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 3 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 15-12-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Next Hearing Date: 15-12-2011
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 27-08-2010
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: B JAYA KUMAR O A MAO

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH E, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI N.V.VASUDEVAN(J.M) & SHRI R.K.PANDA (A .M) ITA NO.6371/MUM/2010(A.Y.2007-08) SEEMA ABDUL SATTAR MOLVI, ROOM NO.2, 39, LES LEO VILLA, PALLI VILLAGE, BANDRA (W), MUMBAI 50. PAN:AGOPM 0532F (APPELLANT) VS. THE ITO, WARD 19 (13) (4), MUMBAI. (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : NONE REVENUE BY : S/ SHRI B.JAYA KUMAR/ O.A. MAO DATE OF HEARING : 15/12/2011 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 15/12/2011 ORDER PER N.V.VASUDEVAN, J.M, THIS IS AN APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDE R DATED 25/6/2010 OF CIT(A)-30, MUMBAI RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 20 07-08. 2. THE NOTICE OF HEARING DATED 01/11/2011 WAS SENT TO THE ASSESSEE BY RPAD FIXING THE DATE OF HEARING ON 15/12/2011. HOW EVER, THE SAME WAS RETURNED BY THE POSTAL AUTHORITIES WITH THE REMARK LEFT. THE NOTICE WAS SENT TO THE ASSESSEE AS PER THE ADDRESS GIVEN IN FO RM NO.36. NO CHANGE OF ADDRESS HAS BEEN INTIMATED TO THE REGISTRY BY THE A SSESSEE. NO ADJOURNMENT PETITION SEEKING ADJOURNMENT OF THE CAS E WAS ALSO FILED. THE ABOVE CONDUCT ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE SHOWS THA T IT IS NOT INTERESTED IN PROSECUTING THE APPEAL FILED BY IT. THEREFORE, FO LLOWING THE DECISION OF THE ITA NO.6371/MUM/2010(A.Y.2007-08) 2 TRIBUNAL REPORTED IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. MULTIPL AN INDIA (P) LTD.38 ITD 320 (DEL) AND THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE MADHYA PRADES H HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF ESTATE OF LATE TUKOJIRAO HOLKAR VS. CWT, 223 IT R 480 (M.P) THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED IN LIMINE. HOW EVER, IF THE ASSESSEE THROUGH PROPER APPLICATION CAN SATISFY THE TRIBUNAL FOR SUCH NON-APPEARANCE ON THE APPOINTED DATE, THE TRIBUNAL AT ITS DISCRETI ON MAY RECALL THIS ORDER. 3. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DIS MISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE 15 TH DAY OF DEC. 2011. SD/- SD/- ( R.K.PANDA ) (N.V.VASUDEVAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI, DATED. 15 TH DEC.2011 COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3 . THE CIT CITY CONCERNED 4. THE CIT(A)- CONCERNED 5. THE D.RE BENCH. (TRUE COPY) BY ORDER ASST. REGISTRAR, I TAT, MUMBAI BENCHES MUMBAI. VM. ITA NO.6371/MUM/2010(A.Y.2007-08) 3 DETAILS DATE INITIALS DESIGNATION 1 DRAFT DICTATED ON 15/12/11 SR.PS/PS 2 DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR 15/12/11 SR.PS/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/PS SR.PS/PS 6. KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT ON SR.PS/PS 7. FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK SR.PS/PS 8 DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK 9 DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER