CHETAN M. SHAH, MUMBAI V. DCIT CEN CIR 2, MUMBAI

ITA 6976/MUM/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1800 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 3 month(s) 28 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 05-02-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 12-11-2012
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 07-10-2010
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: A C TEJPAL

Judgement Text

, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH, MUMBAI . . , . . ! , ' #$ % BEFORE SHRI B.R. MITTAL, JM AND SHRI N.K. BILLA IYA, AM ./I.T.A. NO. 6976/MUM/2010 ( & & & & / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007-08 SHRI CHETAN M. SHAH, 26/779, GANESH KRUPA, PANT NAGAR, GHATKOPAR (E), MUMBAI - 400 077 / VS. THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, OLD C.G.O. BLDG ANNEXE, MUMBAI-400 020 $' ' ./ () ./PAN/GIR NO. :AAQPS 7649F ( '* /APPELLANT ) .. ( +,'* / RESPONDENT ) '* - / APPELLANT BY: NONE +,'* . - / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI A.C. TEJPAL . /0' / DATE OF HEARING : 05.02.2013 12& . /0' / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 05.02.2013 #3 / O R D E R PER N.K. BILLAIYA, AM: THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A)-36, MUMBAI DT.23.7.2010 PERTAINING TO A.Y. 2007-08. 2. THE CASE WAS POSTED FOR HEARING ON 29.5.2012. O N THAT DATE, THE HEARING WAS ADJOURNED TO 9.8.2012 AT THE REQUEST OF THE COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. ON 9.8.2012 AS THE BENCH DID NOT FUNCTION , THE CASE WAS POSTED FOR HEARING ON 12.11.2012. ON THE DATE OF HEARING I.E. ON 12.11.2012, ONCE AGAIN THE COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SOUGHT ADJO URNMENT. ON THAT DATE IT WAS POINTED OUT TO THE COUNSEL THAT THE CASE WIL L BE HEARD ON 5.2.2013. ITA NO. 6976/M/2010 2 3. WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED A LETTER DT. 3.2.2013 SEEKING ADJOURNMENT THOUGH NONE APPEARED FOR THE ASSESSEE. IN VIEW OF ABOVE, IT APPEARS THAT ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED IN PROSECUT ING THIS APPEAL. HENCE THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS LIABLE TO BE DISMISS ED FOR NON-PROSECUTION. IN THIS REGARD, WE ARE SUPPORTED BY THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF CIT VS B.N. BHATTACHARGEE AND ANOTHER, REPORTED IN 118 ITR 460 (RELEVANT PAGES 477 & 478) WHEREIN THEIR LORDSHIPS HAVE HELD THAT: THE APPEAL DOES NOT MEAN MERELY FILING OF THE APPE AL BUT EFFECTIVELY PURSUING IT. 4. IN THIS REGARD WE ARE ALSO SUPPORTED BY THE DECI SION IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. MULTIPLAN INDIA (P) LTD. 38 ITD 320 (DEL). 5. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE AND ALSO CONSIDERING THE PR OVISIONS OF RULE 19 OF THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RULES, 1963, APPEAL OF TH E ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. 6. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISS ED FOR NON- PROSECUTION. 4 /5 4/ . 6 '4( ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT AT THE TIME OF H EARING ON 5 TH FEBRUARY, 2013. #3 . 2& ' 6 7#5 5.2.2013 2 . 8 SD/- SD/- (B.R.MITTAL) (N.K. BILLAIYA) #$ /JUDICIAL MEMBER ' #$ / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI; 7# DATED 05 /02/2012 . . ./ RJ , SR. PS ITA NO. 6976/M/2010 3 #3 #3 #3 #3 . .. . +/ +/ +/ +/ 9&/ 9&/ 9&/ 9&/ / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. '* / THE APPELLANT 2. +,'* / THE RESPONDENT. 3. : ( ) / THE CIT(A)- 4. : / CIT 5. ;8 +/ , , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. 8< = / GUARD FILE. #3 #3 #3 #3 / BY ORDER, ,/ +/ //TRUE COPY// > >> > / ? ? ? ? ( ( ( ( (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, MUMBAI