BIJAYKUMAR BASAVATIA, MUMBAI V. ITO 24(1)(3), MUMBAI

ITA 6668/MUM/2009

• Counselvise Citation: 666819914 RSA 2009
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 7 month(s) 30 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-08-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: J
• Next Hearing Date: 29-08-2011
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 31-12-2009
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ABANI KANTA NAYAK

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES J, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI. D.K. AGARWAL (J.M.) AND SHRI. RAJENDRA SINGH (A.M.) ITA NO.6668/MUM/2009 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006-2007 BIJAYKUMAR BASAVATIA 403, BUILDING NO.A-1, LINK PALACE RANJAN PADA, OFF LINK ROAD, MALAD (W), MUMBAI 400 064. PAN : AAAHB3685C VS. I.T.O. 24(1)(3) C-13, 5 TH FLR., PRATYAKSHAKAR BHAVAN, BANDRA (E), MUMBAI 400 051. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : NONE (AR) RESPONDENT BY : SHRI ABANIKANTA NAYAK (DR) O R D E R PER RAJENDRA SINGH, A.M. THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 28.10.2009 OF LD CIT(A) FOR THE AY 2006-2007. 2. THE ASSESSEE IN THIS APPEAL HAS RAISED DISPUTES ON SEVERAL GROUNDS. HOWEVER, NO ONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE TO REPRESENT THE CASE WHEN THE APPEAL CAME UP FOR HEAR ING TODAY, 29.08.2011 THOUGH THE NOTICE OF HEARING HAD BEEN GI VEN WELL IN ADVANCE. THE PERUSAL OF RECORDS ALSO SHOWS THAT THE APPEAL W AS FIRST FIXED FOR HEARING ON 02.10.2010 FOR WHICH NOTICED WAS DULY SE RVED ON THE ASSESSEE BUT THERE WAS NO RESPONSE. THE HEARING WAS THEREFO RE ADJOURNED TO DIFFERENT DATES THE NOTICE FOR WHICH WAS NONE (AR) GIVEN WELL IN ADVANCE BUT NEITHER SOMEONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSES SEE NOR ANY ADJOURNMENT APPLICATION HAD BEEN RECEIVED. IT CAN THEREFORE BE REASONABLY CONCLUDED THAT THE ASSESEE IS NOT INTERE STED IN PURSUING THE APPEAL. THE APPEAL DOES NOT MEAN ONLY FILING OF ME MORANDUM OF APPEAL ITA NO.6668/MUM/2009 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006-2007 2 BUT ALSO PURSUING IT EFFECTIVELY AS HELD BY HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN CASE OF B.N. BHATACHARJEE AND ANR. (118 ITR 461) (AT PAG ES 477/478). IN SUCH CASES WHERE AN APPELLANT IS NOT INTERESTED IN PROSE CUTION OF APPEAL COURT/TRIBUNAL HAVE INHERENT POWER TO DISMISS THE P ROCEEDINGS FOR NON PROSECUTION AS HELD BY HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF MUMBAI IN CASE OF M/S. CHEMIPOL VS. UNION OF INDIA IN EXCISE APPEAL NO.62/ 2009. ON THE FACTS OF THIS CASE WE ARE CONVINCED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED IN PURSUING THE APPEAL. WE, THEREFORE, DISMISS THE AP PEAL OF THE ASSESSEE AS UNADMITTED. 3. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE STANDS DIS MISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON THIS 30 TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2011. SD/- (D.K. AGARWAL) (JUDICIAL MEMBER) SD/- (RAJENDRA SINGH) (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) MUMBAI, DATED 30.08.2011. JANHAVI COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)- , MU MBAI 4. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CITY- , M UMBAI 5. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, BENCH , MU MBAI //TRUE COPY// BY ORDER ASSTT. REGISTRAR, ITAT, MUMBAI