SHIRLEY N. RAJWANI, MUMBAI V. ITO WD 22(2)(2), MUMBAI

ITA 6381/MUM/2009

• Counselvise Citation: 638119914 RSA 2009
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 7 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 15-07-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: H
• Next Hearing Date: 25-09-2013
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 10-12-2009
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: T T JACOB
• Keywords: Non compliance

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH H, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI P.M.JAGTAP, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI R.S. PADVEKAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER. I.T.A. NO. 6381/MUM/2009. ASSESS MENT YEAR : 2004-05 SHIRLEY N. RAJWANI, THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, 73, JAIHIND MARKET,DR. C.G. ROAD, VS. WARD-22(2)(2), CHEMBUR COLONY, MUMBAI. MUMBAI 400 074. PAN AAIPR 2579P APPELLANT. RESPONDENT. APPELLANT BY : RESPO NDENT BY : SHRI T.T. JACOB. O R D E R. PER P.M. JAGTAP, A.M. : THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAI NST THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(APPEALS)-33, MUMBAI DATED 22-09-2009. 2. AT THE TIME OF HEARING FIXED IN THIS CASE ON 07- 07-2011, NOBODY HAS PUT IN APPEARANCE ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE NOR ANY APPLIC ATION FOR ADJOURNMENT HAS BEEN MOVED DESPITE THE FACT THAT NOTICE OF THE HEARING WAS SENT TO THE ASSESSEE AT THE ADDRESS GIVEN IN THE APPEAL MEMO BY RPAD WELL IN AD VANCE, A PROOF OF WHICH IS ON RECORD. THE DATE OF HEARING WAS ALSO GIVEN ON NO TICE BOARD FROM TIME TO TIME. IT APPEARS THAT THE ASSESSEE THUS IS NOT SERIOUSLY INT ERESTED IN PROSECUTING THIS APPEAL FILED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 2 ITA NO.6381/MUM/2009 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2004-05. 3. CONSIDERING THE FACTS NARRATED ABOVE AND KEEPING IN MIND THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 19(2) OF THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RULES AS CONSI DERED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. MULTIPLAN (INDIA) P. LTD. 38 ITD 3 20 (DEL.) AND BY HONBLE MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF LATE TUKOJ IRAO HOLKAR 223 ITR 480 (M.P.), THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS TREATED AS U NADMITTED AND DISMISSED FOR NON PROSECUTION. THE ASSESSEE, IF SO ADVISED, SHALL BE FREE TO MOVE THE TRIBUNAL EXPLAINING THE REASONS FOR NON COMPLIANCE AND FOR R ECALLING OF THIS ORDER AND IF THE BENCH IS SO SATISFIED, THEN THIS ORDER MAY BE RECAL LED. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. . ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THIS 15 TH DAY OF JULY, 2011. SD/- SD/- (R.S. PADVEKAR) (P.M. JAGTAP) JUDICIAL MEMBER A CCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI, DATED: 15 TH JULY, 2011. COPY TO : 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. C.I.T. 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, H-BENCH. (TRUE COPY ) BY ORD ER ASSTT. R EGISTRAR, ITAT, MUMBAI BEN CHES, MUMBA I. WAKODE