SHAHEEN BANO NISSAR AHMED KHAN, MUMBAI V. ASST. CIT CC 12, MUMBAI

ITA 6632/MUM/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 134 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8527 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 09-02-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2003-2004
• Appeal Filed On: 14-09-2010
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MALTHI R SRIDHARAN

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC BENCH: MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI R.S. PADVEKAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.6632/MUM/2010 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2003-04) SMT. SHALEEN BANO NISSAR AHMED KHAN, SHOP NO.30, KOHINOOR CO-OP. SOCIETY, LINK ROAD, MUMBAI ASSESSEE VS ACIT-C.C. 12, 8TH FLOOR, OLD CGO BLDG., M.K. ROAD, MUMBAI -400 020 .... REVENUE PAN: AGFPK 7632 P ASSESSEE BY: NONE REVENUE BY: SMT MALTHI R. SRIDHARAN O R D E R THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGING TH E IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE LD. CIT (A)-37 MUMBAI DATED 21.07.2010 FOR T HE A.Y. 2003-04. 2. THIS APPEAL WAS FIXED FOR HEARING ON 09.02.2011. THE LD. CIT D.R. FOR THE DEPARTMENT SMT MALTHI R. SRIDHARAN WAS PRES ENT AND NONE WAS PRESENT FOR THE ASSESSEE DESPITE SERVICE OF NOTICE THROUGH RPAD AND SAME HAS BEEN RETURNED BY THE POSTAL AUTHORITY WRIT TEN AS INCOMPLETE ADDRESS ON THE VERIFICATION OF THE ADDRESS IN FORM NO.36 AND IN THE ENVELOP IT IS SEEN THAT THE ADDRESS IS SAME, NO OTH ER ADDRESS IS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. ITA 6632/M/2010 SMT. SHALEEN BANO NISSAR AHMED KHAN 2 3. AS PER THE RECORD, IT IS SEEN THAT BOTH THE PART IES HAVE BEEN INFORMED ABOUT THE DATE OF HEARING. IN SPITE OF SE RVICE OF THE NOTICE, ASSESSEE DID NOT REMAIN PRESENT NOR FILED AN APPLIC ATION FOR THE ADJOURNMENT. I AM, THEREFORE, OF THE OPINION THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED IN PROSECUTING THE APPEAL. I, THEREFORE , FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH IN THE CASE OF TUKOJIRAO HOLKAR VS. CWT (223 ITR 480)(MP) AS WELL AS THE DEC ISION OF THE ITAT DELHI BENCH IN THE CASE OF MULTIPLAN (INDIA) PVT. L TD. (38 ITD 320)(DEL) DISMISS THE APPEAL AS NON-ADMITTED. 3. IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. B. N. BHATTACHARGEE & ANO THER, (1979) 118 ITR 461 (SC), THEIR LORDSHIPS OF SUPREME COURT AT P AGE 477-78 HAS HELD THAT THE APPEAL DOES NOT MERELY MEAN FILING OF THE MEMO OF APPEAL BUT EFFECTIVELY PURSUING THE SAME. I AM, THEREFORE, CON STRAINED TO PRESUME THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED IN PURSUING THE APPEAL. 4 IN THE RESULT, THE ASSESSEES APPEAL STANDS DISMI SSED IN LIMINE. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS DAY OF 9 TH FEBRUARY 2011. SD/- ( R.S. PADVEKAR ) JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI, DATE: 9TH FEBRUARY 2011 COPY TO:- 1) THE APPELLANT. 2) THE RESPONDENT. 3) THE CIT (A) 37, MUMBAI. ITA 6632/M/2010 SMT. SHALEEN BANO NISSAR AHMED KHAN 3 4) THE CIT CENTRAL -I, MUMBAI. 5) THE D.R. SMC BENCH, MUMBAI. BY ORDER / / TRUE COPY / / ASSTT. REGISTRAR I.T.A.T., MUMBAI *CHAVAN ITA 6632/M/2010 SMT. SHALEEN BANO NISSAR AHMED KHAN 4 SR.N. EPISODE OF AN ORDER DATE INITIALS CONCERNED 1 DRAFT DICTATED ON 09.02.2011 SR.PS 2 DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR 09.02.2011 SR.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 FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK 9 DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER