KALPATARU PROPERTIES P. LTD, MUMBAI V. DCIT CEN CIR 36, MUMBAI

ITA 7196/MUM/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 71338 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 11 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-09-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 25-09-2013
• Assessment Year: 1999-2000
• Appeal Filed On: 20-10-2010
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SU RENDRA KUMAR

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH, MUM BAI . . , , BEFORE SHRI B. R. MITTAL, JM AND SHRI SANJAY ARORA , AM ./ I.T.A. NO. 7196/MUM/2010 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 1999-2000) KALPATARU PROPERTIES PRIVATE LIMITED 101, KALPATARU SYNDERGY, OPP. GRAND HYATT HOTEL, SANTACRUZ (E), MUMBAI-400 055 / VS. DY. CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 36, MUMBAI-400 020 ! ./' ./PAN/GIR NO. AAACK 4322 N ( !# /APPELLANT ) : ( $!# / RESPONDENT ) !# % / APPELLANT BY : NONE $!# & % / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI SURENDRA KUMAR ' ()* & + / DATE OF HEARING : 25.09.2013 ,-. & + / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 25.09.2013 / / O R D E R PER SANJAY ARORA, A. M.: THIS IS AN APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-41, MUMBAI (CIT(A) FOR SH ORT) DATED 16.08.2010, DISMISSING THE ASSESSEES APPEAL CONTESTING ITS ASSESSMENT U/S .143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (THE ACT HEREINAFTER) FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR (A. Y.) 1999-2000 VIDE ORDER DATED 28.03.2002. 2 ITA NO. 7196 /MUM/2010 (A.Y. 1999-2000) KALPATARU PROPERTIES PRIVATE LIMITED VS. DY. CIT 2. NONE APPEARED FOR AND ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE WHEN ITS APPEAL WAS CALLED FOR HEARING NOR ANY ADJOURNMENT APPLICATION STANDS RECE IVED, DESPITE PROOF OF SERVICE OF NOTICE OF HEARING, WHICH WAS PER REGISTERED POST, B EING ON RECORD. ALSO, WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT EVEN FILED ANY POWER OF ATTORNEY O R LETTER OF AUTHORITY IN FAVOUR OF ANY COUNSEL. UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, THEREFORE, WE INF ER THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT SERIOUS OR EARNEST IN PROSECUTING ITS APPEAL. IN THE CASE OF CIT V. B.N. BHATTARCHARYA (1979) 118 ITR 461 (SC), IT HAS BEEN HELD BY THE APEX COURT TH AT PREFERRING AN APPEAL DOES NOT MEAN MERE FILING OF THE APPEAL MEMO, BUT EFFECTIVELY PUR SUING IT. WE, THEREFORE, FOLLOWING THE DECISIONS BY THE HONBLE MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF ESTATE OF LATE TUKOJIRAO HOLKAR VS. CWT (1997) 223 ITR 480 (MP) AND BY THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT DATED 17.09.2010 IN THE CASE OF CHEMIPOL VS. UNION OF INDIA IN CENTRAL EXCISE APPEAL NO. 62 OF 2009, AS WELL AS BY THE TRIBUNAL ( DELHI BENCH) IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. MULTIPLAN INDIA (P.) LTD ., REPORTED AT 38 ITD 320, DISMISS THE INSTANT APPE AL BY THE ASSESSEE AS UN-ADMITTED FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION. 3. IN THE RESULT, THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IS DISMISSE D IN LIMINE . 0. 1 (230 & 0 & 45 ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON SEPTEMBER 25, 2013 SD/- SD/- (B. R. MITTAL) (SANJAY ARORA) / JUDICIAL MEMBER / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ' * MUMBAI; 6( DATED : 25.09.2013 ).(../ ROSHANI , SR. PS ! ' #$%& ' &$ / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. !# / THE APPELLANT 2. $!# / THE RESPONDENT 3. ' 7 ( ) / THE CIT(A) 4. ' 7 / CIT CONCERNED 5. :);< $ (=2 , + =2. , ' * / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. <>3 ?* / GUARD FILE 3 ITA NO. 7196 /MUM/2010 (A.Y. 1999-2000) KALPATARU PROPERTIES PRIVATE LIMITED VS. DY. CIT ! ( / BY ORDER, )/(* + (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , ' * / ITAT, MUMBAI